What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5007372 about?

The tribunal order states: Fray Investment Limited Mark & Cathy Fray must pay [The tenant/s] $827.00

How much money was awarded in case 5007372?

Compensation: Gutters: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Roof And Mould: $1,980.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007372?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10957264-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5007372 about?

The tribunal order states: Fray Investment Limited Mark & Cathy Fray must pay [The tenant/s] $827.00

How much money was awarded in case 5007372?

Compensation: Gutters: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Roof And Mould: $1,980.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007372?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10957264-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

56A Fergusson Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5007372 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007372 — net $3,107.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Roof and mould	$1,980.00	Roof and mould
Compensation: Gutters	$300.00	Gutters
Exemplary Damages: Uncertified electric work	$800.00	Uncertified electric work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,107.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,107.00

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords appeared but the property manager did not as they have resigned.

The tenancy began on the 18 June 2018.The tenant has been issued a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy on 25 October 2024. The landlord intends to sell the property.

The tenant sought compensation for failure to maintain the premises, compensation for breaches Healthy Homes standards, work order, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

At the hearing the tenant did not pursue the work order claim as she has been issued a 90 day notice to end the tenancy and wanted the premises maintained while she was living there.

The property was managed by 2 different property managers during the tenancy. Both parties raised concerns about the last property manager from Rentassured property management believing that they were not being told what was happening with the tenancy, requests and repairs.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.

The tenant has claimed $4000.00 in compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. The assessment of compensation is a question of fact. The measure of damages is to place the relevant party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed, so far as money can do so.

The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to; a) Provide the correct gas/electric connection. b) Fix a leak in the roof and mould issues. c) Maintain the gutters and drains. d) Correctly install a shower. e) Have certified electrician install the rangehood.

I will address each of the tenants’ claims related to breaches of section 45 RTA. Gas connection.

The premises had previously been connected to a gas supply, but this was now not in use. Approximately 18 months after the landlord bought the premises the tenant received invoices for gas usage. This amount was included on her electricity account and even though she did not have or use gas she paid the bills to avoid the electricity being disconnected. A copy of accounts was provided.

The tenant paid over many months while questioning the account and having the matter investigated. This was stressful for the tenant and though ultimately the amount she paid was refunded as a credit, she sought compensation for this. The tenant believed that the landlord should have made sure that the premises were properly connected before the tenancy began.

A tenant is responsible only for outgoings that are exclusively linked to the tenant’s occupation of the premises See section 39 RTA. The costs for gas use were clearly not related to this tenancy.

The landlords said it was a problem of the power company because the premises had changed from gas supply to electricity before their ownership. They thought the property manager had sorted it out but have since found out that the property manager was not communicating with them and letting them know what was occurring with the tenancy.

A text was provided where the property manager said that she would ask the landlord if they knew anything about it. The owner said they were not told.

The tenant believed that it was not her responsibility to pay and sort out the issue. I agree that the tenant should not have been in this situation. The problem was eventually solved without the need for the landlords to be involved.

A landlord is not to interfere with supply of gas or electricity. See section 45(2) RTA. I can find no act, omission or interference by the landlords that led to this situation. It was not established that there was any failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair or maintenance.

The council wrongly charged the tenant for gas use based on historical records that the property had gas hot water. I do not find that the landlords are responsible for this.

This claim against the landlord is dismissed. Roof leak and mould

The tenant provided photographs of water beading of a ceiling and trailing down a wall in an end bedroom. There was also water on the windowsill and wet floors when it rained. This started in July 2020 and the tenant provided a photo of towels on the floor being used to soak up the water.

This claim is complicated by the property manager not relaying all of the tenants concerns to the landlord. However on 26 September 2020 the landlord said that they eventually heard that there were claims that the roof had a hole and it was leaking. The landlord Mr Fray, who is a master carpenter, came and put sealant on the roof and requested that the property manager get a quote for a new roof.

This was the start of a pattern of the tenant having leaks, the landlord applying sealant and no quote for a new roof being obtained.

The landlord said for 10 months they thought that there were no leaks as the property manager had included in the property inspections that it was ‘fine’. This was not the tenants experience.

The landlord said that it was not until May 2023 that they were called back for leaking in the bedrooms and they instructed that a roofer be employed to look at it. The property manager organised a plumber. There was no plumber report or confirmation that one attended the premises. The landlords did not correct the property manager and ask for a roofer to inspect the roof. They left matters how they were, thinking that the property manager had it under control.

In October 2023 the property manager suggested that Mr Fray look at the leaks again commenting ‘bedroom occasionally ‘leaking’.

In January 2024 the property manager contacted the landlord about the tenants concerns about the hole in the roof above the second bedroom.

In February 2024 the tenant said she won’t pay the rent for a hole in the roof. The landlords said there was ‘no hole in the roof just some water ingress on some angled rain’.

The property manager sent an email to the landlords saying that the tenant was building a case against them and advised them to sell the premises. The landlord was confused by this and asked for clarification. No reply to this was provided.

A quote was obtained 4 years after it was asked for and the roof was booked in on 26 March 2024 to be replaced.

The roof had been leaking over a four-year period whether intermittently or not there was good evidence from the tenant that this bedroom was damp mouldy and often had wet walls and carpet.

The landlords tried many times to fix this themselves, but I find that they failed to maintain it in a reasonable state of repair. When their own repeated attempts to fix the roof failed, they should have instructed an expert to review the roof. There was no evidence that this was done until it was replaced.

The landlord’s responsibility is not mitigated by the claim that it didn’t leak all the time, a reasonably maintained premises does not leak.

When the roof was replaced, the roofer gave statement that he could find no evidence of a leak after removing the old roof. There were disagreements about where the water was coming from, but the issue was that it was leaking, and that it required fixing, where it was coming from is not a question that is answered here.

I find that the landlord did not respond appropriately to the leak that they knew was at the premises. The landlords employed a property manager as they said at some expense, that they had become aware was not following through with their requests, but they did not check up on them or the inspection reports.

It was not disputed that there were mould issues at the premises. The bedroom that suffered a leak had mould in the walls and ceiling. A bed had mould on the cover.

The premises had a heat pump, and the tenant used a dehumidifier. She cleaned the mould with vinegar but believed that the mould came from the ceiling, and she could not get to the source of it.

The landlord provided a statement for the roofer that the mould could not have come from the ceiling. The tenant’s habit of opening all the windows was questioned as a cause for mould.

Mould is fungal growth that requires moisture, oxygen, warmth, and darkness to grow. Mould will grow where humidity is high.

To prevent mould, surfaces must be cleaned, and excess moisture and humidity reduced. landlords ideally need to provide premises with heating, extractor fans, and safety stays on windows so premises can be safely aired while tenants are out. Dehumidifiers are also helpful in reducing mould.

This is balanced by the tenant’s responsibility to heat and air the premises and to use extractor fans and dehumidifiers, if provided.

The importance of these measures and their effect on creating a healthy drier home have been acknowledged and reflected in the Healthy Homes Standards which apply to all private rentals by 1 July 2025.

The landlord offered to have the premises commercially cleaned to remove the mould, but the tenant refused as she did not want chlorine in her home.

The tenant acknowledged that the premises were better after the new roof was installed but stated that she lived with mould for some time before that.

I find that the landlord provided heating and the tenant did all that she could to prevent and clean the mould. The mould probably originated from the initial bedroom leak and its growth was a consequence of the failure to maintain the premises.

I find that the landlord has not provided and maintained the premises in a reasonable state of repair and apportion general damages at $10.00 per week for the 198 weeks that the tenant lived with a leak at the premises and resulting mould, being $1980.00 for the inconvenience suffered by the tenant for living in those conditions. Gutters and drainage

The tenant provided photos of full gutters, broken drainpipes, and drainage issues. She said the gutters flow to the neighbours then overflow and water comes onto the back of her property.

The landlord said that that it does need additional drainage as there are only soak holes which become overwhelmed when there has been a lot of rain. The premises are not connected to the public storm water system, and they decided to wait to upgrade as they were putting the premises on the market.

I find that the landlord failed to maintain the gutters and drainage. The landlord said that they did not know about these claims during the tenancy but then said that they decided to wait to address them. From the photographs provided the damage and state of the gutters and drains is very clear. If the landlord was on the roof and doing general maintenance, it would have been obvious. I find that it is no excuse to delay this maintenance because the premises were going on the market.

I award general damages of $300.00 for the inconvenience suffered by the tenant for this lack of maintenance. Installation of the Shower

The shower was leaking, and the landlord came to fix it in September 2020.

The shower failed again in February 2023 and the landlord installed a new one.

In December 2023 the landlords were told it was leaking again. This was also fixed.

In August 2022 the landlord was told that there was a problem with the shower by the property manager but did not think it was urgent. In January 2023 a plumber fixed a leaking shower head. A few days after this they were informed that the shower was leaking with water coming out.

The landlord arrived to fix it on 10 February and found a hole in the shower base. They did not realise how serious the leak was from the property manager. The landlord installed a new shower unit, tested it and it worked well.

This new unit then started leaking from under the bottom of it on 12 February. The landlord was preventing from attending or communicating with the property manager due to cyclone bolar. He attended to the repair on 19 February.

In March 2023 the shower overflowed again but this was fixed by removing a drainage cup.

The landlords believe that this was fixed until they saw the healthy homes report from Habitat for Humanity conducted on 20 June 2024 which identified leaks from the bottom of the shower door and a strip of seal missing. Habitat for Humanity remedied this. The tenant said it has been fine since then.

The landlords believed that the original shower they installed had a manufacturing fault and they attended to every concern that the tenant had in a timely manner.

The landlord had not received a copy of the Healthy Homes report from Habitat for Humanity and did not know about the further issues with the shower. The tenant thought the property manager had sent it on but the landlord had not received it. There was no evidence provided that the landlord knew about the last failure of the shower.

Although this was an ongoing repair, I find that the landlord’s attended to the tenant’s maintenance requests when they knew about them. I decline the claim in relation to the shower repairs. Exemplary Damages Installation of rangehood.

The landlord wired in the rangehood himself, this was not disputed. All electrical work at a tenancy must be performed by a registered electrician.

If a landlord fails to comply with the with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises this can be declared to be an unlawful act and the Tribunal can award exemplary damages. See section45(1)(c )RTA.

The purpose of exemplary damages is to punish and deter intentional breaches of a legal duty and may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In this instance I find that the landlords committed an unlawful act. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages for the installation of the rangehood. This involved electrical work which the landlord, as a master carpenter, would have known had to be completed by a registered electrician. This worried the tenant and could have put her and her family at risk.

Having regard to the landlords intent, which is taken to be to save money, and the effect on the tenant causing her concern, and the public interest that landlords should only have electrical work completed approved a registered electrician, I find it just to award exemplary damages of $800.00. See section 109(3) RTA. Healthy Homes Standards

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.

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 tenant clamed a breach under the HHS because the heating needs atop up, the ventilation does not comply, and there are mould issues. The tenancy is exempt from insulation requirements.

The tenant was correct in saying that because the tenancy began in 2018 it does not come under any of the compliance dates above and needs to comply by 1 July 2025. This claim is dismissed.

The tenant claimed for retaliatory notice, but this was not heard. The tenant can reapply to have this claim determined.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenant was substantially successful and has asked for name suppression and this is granted. See section 95(A)RTA.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007372 — net $3,107.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Roof and mould	$1,980.00	Roof and mould
Compensation: Gutters	$300.00	Gutters
Exemplary Damages: Uncertified electric work	$800.00	Uncertified electric work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,107.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,107.00