What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5002268?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for compensation of $2,171.00 is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5002268?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002268?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11233111-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5002268?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for compensation of $2,171.00 is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5002268?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002268?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11233111-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 97 Filleul Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5002268 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant by telephone.

The tenancy was initially for a fixed term from 26/11/2021 at $480.00 rent per week.

Subsequently after extensions the tenancy rolled over to a periodic in May 2023 at $500.00 rent per week.

Matthew Paul Hawtin seeks compensation of $2,171.00 as follows: a. $480.00 being one weeks reduction in rent for the mould in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. b. $1,000.00 being two weeks rent reduction for lack of a working heater in the lounge for 12 days. c. $691.00 being 1% rent reduction for approximately 144 weeks without access to the storage area which was part of the tenancy. Submissions Tenant

The tenant submitted that when he moved into the premises, he discovered mould on the wall and skirting board behind the bed and the sofa in the lounge.

After cleaning the mould, he contacted the landlord who arranged for the carpets to be cleaned.

In support of his claims the tenant provided photographs of the mould taken around 27 or 28 November 2021.

The tenant was unhappy that the landlord had not arranged further cleaning and wanted compensation for the time he was living in what he believed were substandard mouldy conditions.

Further the tenant submitted that due to the lack of a working heater in the lounge he was forced to leave the property before his tenancy ended.

The tenant issued a 14 day notice to the landlord on 26/8/2024 and suggested that the heater was not repaired within the required timeframe.

Finally, the tenant submitted that he did not have access to the storage area because the key he was given at the start of the tenancy did not work and despite raising the issue several times with the landlord it was not until a different property manager took over that he was provided with a working key.

On the basis that the storage area was 1% of the rental area, and he had to store boxes in his lounge the tenant wanted compensation by way of a rent reduction. Landlord

While accepting that the tenant had found mould under the bed, the landlord submitted that this had not been evident on the initial property inspection undertaken on 26/11/2021.

After receiving the text of 30/11/2021 from the tenant about the mould the landlord arranged for a carpet cleaner to clean the carpets.

The landlord suggested she was unaware that the tenant had also found mould in the lounge.

Further the landlord believed that the issue had been dealt with because she had not heard anything further from the tenant.

The landlord submitted that she was advised via email on 21/8 about the issue with the heater and that the appliance was replaced on 2/9/2024.

The landlord provided copies of the email and text communication between the parties, work orders and texts from the contractor to the tenant.

The landlord confirmed there was a small heater in the bedroom as well as the bathroom heater mentioned by the tenant.

Further the landlord submitted that she received the first email about the storage issue on 22/8/2024.

Previously the landlord confirmed that when the tenant raised the matter, she had opened the storage area with the key provided to him.

In addition, the landlord provided six property inspection reports throughout the tenancy with photographs of the lounge.

Both parties provided photographs of the storage keys.

The landlord suggested that there were no significant issues, and the landlord tenant relationship was good during the term of the tenancy until the tenant attempted to give 21 days notice, which the owner declined to accept and insisted on the legislative 28 days.

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

For this tenancy the compliance date would have been 25/11/2021.

The landlord provided a healthy homes compliance certificate dated 1/7/2021. Discussion

The applicant, in this case the tenant, is required to establish the claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

I find the tenant has failed to persuade me with his evidence to the required standard.

While the evidence supports that there was some mould in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy at the back of the bed and sofa which the landlord failed to see on the inspection, when the matter was brought to her attention the landlord immediately acted to rectify the issue.

Moreover, the tenant has not provided any evidence that he suffered any loss from undertaking the cleaning or was unable to stay in the premises due to the mould.

Premises only need to be provided in a reasonably clean condition and I consider in this instance the landlord did not breach this standard and attended to the problem in a timely manner.

Further while the evidence supports that the heater in the lounge room did not work for a short period of time, I do not consider this is a breach of healthy homes standards, because any appliance can fail.

What is important is the length of time taken by the landlord to rectify the situation and if there was alternative heating provided, which there was in this case, albeit not to the same standard as the original heater.

The evidence provided by the landlord confirms that the heater was replaced within 12 days of being advised of the issue and within 7 days of the section 56 notice.

I find the landlord has not breached the provisions of section 45 and has not committed unlawful acts.

Other than a photograph of the storage keys, in which the tenant was unable to identify which key was the original and which the replacement, the only evidence about storage issues is an email to the landlord dated 22/8/2024 and the inspection reports showing no boxes stored in the lounge room during the tenancy.

This evidence does not support the tenant’s contention that the issue of the lack of use of the storage area was one which the landlord failed to rectify in a timely manner.

No filing fee is awarded because the tenant has been unsuccessful with his claims.

Suppression is not available to the tenant because he was unsuccessful.