What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5013569 about?

The tribunal order states: An application has been made for suppression and the Tribunal orders that the

How much money was awarded in case 5013569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5013569?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5013569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11105646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5013569 about?

The tribunal order states: An application has been made for suppression and the Tribunal orders that the

How much money was awarded in case 5013569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5013569?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5013569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11105646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Oregon Drive, Maoribank, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5013569 — Mould & damp

Order

An application has been made for suppression and the Tribunal orders that the identifying details of the tenant be suppressed.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. Put another way, Ms Archer has the responsibility of proving that [The tenant/s] is responsible for the costs she says she is.
The claims Ms Archer makes are as follows: a. $1,970.62 for having to dry the carpet after [The tenant/s] cleaned it with a Rug Doctor. b. $167 for replacing some net curtains. c. $168.19 for a plumber and $345 for replacing underlay due to a leak.
These claims are all for compensation as a result of damage and the relevant law is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). To be successful in such a claim, the landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Wet carpets
Ms Archer says that when she came to do the final inspection the carpets were very wet. She therefore contracted ChemDry to look at them who told her they would need to be professionally dried. The cost of doing so was $1,970.62.
[The tenant/s] disputes the claim and says she used a Rug Doctor to clean the carpet as she was supposed to, although she had not used one previously. She says the carpets were not particularly wet and did not need professional drying. Her understanding is that they would take approximately 24 hours to dry out.
She says she was not aware she would have to pay for the drying until she lodged a claim for her bond to be returned some weeks after the end of the tenancy and Ms Archer made a counter claim. She also says the carpets could have been wet from the leak from the laundry (discussed below).
Ms Archer’s evidence is that ChemDry measured the level of water in the carpets and said they needed lifting and drying for several days because they were so wet.
The bond has been refunded in full to [The tenant/s] despite Ms Archer claiming costs from [The tenant/s]. The costs she is claiming are of the exact nature that a bond is designed to cover and as such it remains unclear why the bond has already been returned.
In their messages Ms Archer says to [The tenant/s] that the guy pulled up some of the carpet and said the underlay is a little bit damp but not enough to lift the carpet. He is putting in 2 dehumidifiers and an air blower and will check it again.
Having considered the evidence carefully, I do not find it established that the carpets were damaged by water. ChemDry did use dehumidifiers and an air blower but there is no evidence that this was strictly necessary. The invoice from ChemDry does not state the extent of the wetness and it is well known that carpets will be a little damp from using a Rug Doctor and will need to dry out. Ventilation and a dehumidifier may well have rectified the issue rather than incurring a substantial cost from a professional.
Accordingly, as it has not been established in evidence that [The tenant/s] damaged the carpets, the claim is dismissed. Net curtains
The net curtains were ripped in some of the rooms at the end of the tenancy and Ms Archer now claims the cost of replacing them. They were approximately two years old at the end of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] says these were her net curtains as she had replaced them during the tenancy because they were mouldy and ripped. Ms Archer disputes this and says they were in good condition.
There are no photos of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy and the property inspection report does not note any issues with them. There is an unsigned letter from a former contractor of Ms Archer’s (related to [The tenant/s]) saying that the nets were “black, frayed and full of holes” in June 2023 (just prior to this tenancy).
Current depreciation guidelines state that net curtains have an expected life span in New Zealand residential properties of approximately one year. These curtains, if they were indeed the original ones, have exceeded that time frame. Accordingly, I find it more likely than not that the state of the curtains was due to fair wear and tear and as such [The tenant/s] is not liable for the replacement cost. This claim is dismissed. Leak
In February 2024 [The tenant/s] noticed a leak in the middle bedroom. She advised Ms Archer who contracted a plumber who said it was caused by a leaking washing machine hose. At the time Ms Archer absorbed the cost of the plumber and replacement of the carpet underlay, however claims reimbursement of the costs now.
[The tenant/s] says she advised Ms Archer of the leak as soon as she was aware of it, but it took her five days to respond. She doubts that the leak could have come from the way her washing machine was installed for the following reasons: a. She had been in the property for over seven months when the leak was found. b. [The witness] referred to a previous tenant’s washing machine leaking in the same way. c. Ms Archer said the laundry tub was found to be leaking just after the tenancy as well.
The evidence from the plumber does not substantiate the claim that the washing machine was incorrectly fitted which caused the leak. Had this been the case it is likely the leak would have been found earlier. Given there were issues with a leak from the laundry into the bedroom during earlier and later tenancies, it appears more likely that the issue was related to the laundry pipes.
Even if I am wrong in this, I do not consider it just that Ms Archer be reimbursed the cost at this late stage after she has accepted the cost seven months earlier. This is what is known as the principal of estoppel.
The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. This principle is entirely consistent with the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal (Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 & 4053657), in particular s 85(2) RTA, provides that: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Essentially Ms Archer has changed her mind as to who should be liable for this cost, and this is not a just approach. [The tenant/s] acted on the advice given to her that she would not be liable for the cost and that should not be revisited now. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. This includes being successful in their application or in their defence to an application. [The tenant/s] has been successful, therefore her details are to be suppressed from the published order. Ms Archer’s application for suppression must be dismissed as her claims have been.

Order

An application has been made for suppression and the Tribunal orders that the identifying details of the tenant be suppressed.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. Put another way, Ms Archer has the responsibility of proving that [The tenant/s] is responsible for the costs she says she is.
The claims Ms Archer makes are as follows: a. $1,970.62 for having to dry the carpet after [The tenant/s] cleaned it with a Rug Doctor. b. $167 for replacing some net curtains. c. $168.19 for a plumber and $345 for replacing underlay due to a leak.
These claims are all for compensation as a result of damage and the relevant law is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). To be successful in such a claim, the landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Wet carpets
Ms Archer says that when she came to do the final inspection the carpets were very wet. She therefore contracted ChemDry to look at them who told her they would need to be professionally dried. The cost of doing so was $1,970.62.
[The tenant/s] disputes the claim and says she used a Rug Doctor to clean the carpet as she was supposed to, although she had not used one previously. She says the carpets were not particularly wet and did not need professional drying. Her understanding is that they would take approximately 24 hours to dry out.
She says she was not aware she would have to pay for the drying until she lodged a claim for her bond to be returned some weeks after the end of the tenancy and Ms Archer made a counter claim. She also says the carpets could have been wet from the leak from the laundry (discussed below).
Ms Archer’s evidence is that ChemDry measured the level of water in the carpets and said they needed lifting and drying for several days because they were so wet.
The bond has been refunded in full to [The tenant/s] despite Ms Archer claiming costs from [The tenant/s]. The costs she is claiming are of the exact nature that a bond is designed to cover and as such it remains unclear why the bond has already been returned.
In their messages Ms Archer says to [The tenant/s] that the guy pulled up some of the carpet and said the underlay is a little bit damp but not enough to lift the carpet. He is putting in 2 dehumidifiers and an air blower and will check it again.
Having considered the evidence carefully, I do not find it established that the carpets were damaged by water. ChemDry did use dehumidifiers and an air blower but there is no evidence that this was strictly necessary. The invoice from ChemDry does not state the extent of the wetness and it is well known that carpets will be a little damp from using a Rug Doctor and will need to dry out. Ventilation and a dehumidifier may well have rectified the issue rather than incurring a substantial cost from a professional.
Accordingly, as it has not been established in evidence that [The tenant/s] damaged the carpets, the claim is dismissed. Net curtains
The net curtains were ripped in some of the rooms at the end of the tenancy and Ms Archer now claims the cost of replacing them. They were approximately two years old at the end of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] says these were her net curtains as she had replaced them during the tenancy because they were mouldy and ripped. Ms Archer disputes this and says they were in good condition.
There are no photos of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy and the property inspection report does not note any issues with them. There is an unsigned letter from a former contractor of Ms Archer’s (related to [The tenant/s]) saying that the nets were “black, frayed and full of holes” in June 2023 (just prior to this tenancy).
Current depreciation guidelines state that net curtains have an expected life span in New Zealand residential properties of approximately one year. These curtains, if they were indeed the original ones, have exceeded that time frame. Accordingly, I find it more likely than not that the state of the curtains was due to fair wear and tear and as such [The tenant/s] is not liable for the replacement cost. This claim is dismissed. Leak
In February 2024 [The tenant/s] noticed a leak in the middle bedroom. She advised Ms Archer who contracted a plumber who said it was caused by a leaking washing machine hose. At the time Ms Archer absorbed the cost of the plumber and replacement of the carpet underlay, however claims reimbursement of the costs now.
[The tenant/s] says she advised Ms Archer of the leak as soon as she was aware of it, but it took her five days to respond. She doubts that the leak could have come from the way her washing machine was installed for the following reasons: a. She had been in the property for over seven months when the leak was found. b. [The witness] referred to a previous tenant’s washing machine leaking in the same way. c. Ms Archer said the laundry tub was found to be leaking just after the tenancy as well.
The evidence from the plumber does not substantiate the claim that the washing machine was incorrectly fitted which caused the leak. Had this been the case it is likely the leak would have been found earlier. Given there were issues with a leak from the laundry into the bedroom during earlier and later tenancies, it appears more likely that the issue was related to the laundry pipes.
Even if I am wrong in this, I do not consider it just that Ms Archer be reimbursed the cost at this late stage after she has accepted the cost seven months earlier. This is what is known as the principal of estoppel.
The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. This principle is entirely consistent with the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal (Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 & 4053657), in particular s 85(2) RTA, provides that: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Essentially Ms Archer has changed her mind as to who should be liable for this cost, and this is not a just approach. [The tenant/s] acted on the advice given to her that she would not be liable for the cost and that should not be revisited now. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. This includes being successful in their application or in their defence to an application. [The tenant/s] has been successful, therefore her details are to be suppressed from the published order. Ms Archer’s application for suppression must be dismissed as her claims have been.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5013569 — Mould & damp at 13 Oregon Drive, Maoribank, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5013569 — Mould & damp at 13 Oregon Drive, Maoribank, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions