How much money was awarded in case 5041069?

Replace Furnishings (Blinds: $125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5041069?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5041069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11377643-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5041069?

Replace Furnishings (Blinds: $125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5041069?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5041069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11377643-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5041069 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5041069 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5041069. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings (blinds	$125.00		Replace furnishings (blinds
Bond		$247.25

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] owe [The landlord/s] $125.00, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $247.25 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $125.00 [The tenant/s]: $122.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord is claiming $247.25 for the cost to replace a blind furnishing. The landlord says that the blind was installed just prior to the tenancy commencing, and that at the end of the tenancy it was mouldy at the bottom. The mould was unable to be removed and the blind required replacing. Photographs have been provided to prove that the mould occurred during the tenancy and the landlord submits that the damage was caused carelessly and could have been prevented through opening the blinds, wiping and ventilation (opening windows).

The tenants submit that the damage was caused by the design of the blind. Specifically, the blind design meant it rested against the window. This resulted in the blind absorbing condensation and producing mould.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

I am satisfied that the evidence shows that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that it could have been prevented. Even if there was a design flaw, if the blinds had been opened and/or wiped, the damage would have been less likely to occur. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord claims for a total amount of $247.25 for a new replacement blind. Although I understand this was for a “lesser” blind, it was still new. If the damage had not occurred, the landlord would not have a new blind, accordingly I have ordered a reduced amount of $125.00 to reflect depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The amount ordered is proved.

Both parties have applied for suppression. As both parties have had some level of success, I have granted suppression to both parties. In my view, any benefit to the public in the decision can be obtained without the publication of parties’ names. R Harvey-Lane 31 January 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5041069. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings (blinds	$125.00		Replace furnishings (blinds
Bond		$247.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] owe [The landlord/s] $125.00, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $247.25 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $125.00 [The tenant/s]: $122.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is claiming $247.25 for the cost to replace a blind furnishing. The landlord says that the blind was installed just prior to the tenancy commencing, and that at the end of the tenancy it was mouldy at the bottom. The mould was unable to be removed and the blind required replacing. Photographs have been provided to prove that the mould occurred during the tenancy and the landlord submits that the damage was caused carelessly and could have been prevented through opening the blinds, wiping and ventilation (opening windows).
The tenants submit that the damage was caused by the design of the blind. Specifically, the blind design meant it rested against the window. This resulted in the blind absorbing condensation and producing mould.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
I am satisfied that the evidence shows that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that it could have been prevented. Even if there was a design flaw, if the blinds had been opened and/or wiped, the damage would have been less likely to occur. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims for a total amount of $247.25 for a new replacement blind. Although I understand this was for a “lesser” blind, it was still new. If the damage had not occurred, the landlord would not have a new blind, accordingly I have ordered a reduced amount of $125.00 to reflect depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amount ordered is proved.
Both parties have applied for suppression. As both parties have had some level of success, I have granted suppression to both parties. In my view, any benefit to the public in the decision can be obtained without the publication of parties’ names. R Harvey-Lane 31 January 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5041069 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5041069 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions