What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5085968 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5085968?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085968?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11320488-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5085968 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5085968?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085968?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11320488-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5085968 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

On 12 September 2023 I made a decision about a previous application made by the tenant in respect of this tenancy. That application raised multiple issues, including several aspects of non-compliance with the healthy homes standards.
One of the healthy homes issues addressed in the decision is the absence of mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen in the loft. The loft is a self- contained area that the tenants intended to, and did at times, rent out during their tenancy.
My findings were that: a. An exemption applies in respect of ventilation for the bathroom. The landlord provided a statement from an electrician confirming that it was not practical to install a ventilation fan in the bathroom due to the design and construction of the building. b. The landlord was obliged to have ventilation in the kitchen, even though there is no fixed stove there. c. Although it is possible that is also not practical to install a ventilation fan in the kitchen given its proximity to the bathroom, the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that an exemption applies, and no such evidence was provided. d. I made an award of exemplary damages for failure to meet the healthy homes standards. There were multiple proven breaches. I awarded a ‘global’ amount of $3,000.00.
[Tenant 2] left the tenancy in September 2023.
The tenancy ended on or around 11 January 2024.
[Tenant 1] filed this application on 3 December 2024.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 17 January 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Mr Peters (JS Property Management) and Ms Chang attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Findings
[Tenant 1]’s claim is based on my previous finding that the absence of mechanical ventilation in the kitchen in the loft is a breach of the healthy homes standards.
[Tenant 1] seeks exemplary damages and compensation. The compensation claim is based on an argument that his ability to rent out the loft area was compromised by the fact that it was not healthy homes compliant.
Mr Peters said that: a. There is no kitchen in the loft and therefore no obligation to have ventilation. There is no stove in that space, and the LIM report shows that this part of the loft is a “vanity”. b. Even if ventilation was required, it is very likely that an exemption applies due to the design and construction of this part of the property.
I am not persuaded on the first point. The LIM report describes the way that the property was described to the local Council, or perhaps the way that the property was set up when the LIM was created, but it does not necessarily reflect its actual current use. As noted in the previous order, the loft contains a kitchen sink and bench, and most reasonable tenants would assume that this part of the self-contained loft is intended to be used as a kitchen. Cooking puts moisture into the air, whether or not the cooking is done on a fixed stove, which is the reason why there is a healthy homes requirement for mechanical ventilation in the kitchen.
On the second point, I accept that it is probable that an exemption applies to mechanical ventilation in the kitchen because of the construction of the building. I noted this in the previous decision.
My finding is that it is not appropriate to make a further award for exemplary damages or compensation for the following reasons: a. The award of exemplary damages for non-compliance with the healthy homes standards in the previous order was substantial and appropriate. b. The landlord has taken significant steps, at considerable cost, to achieve healthy homes compliance. It was appropriate for the landlord to address the more serious healthy homes issues (insulation, drainage, draught stopping) ahead of this issue. c. Ventilation in the kitchen in the loft is a minor and somewhat “grey” issue. d. It is likely than an exemption applies. e. It would be unjust to penalise the landlord for not addressing this in the last few months of the tenancy. f. It is practically impossible for [Tenant 1] to prove that the absence of an extractor fan in the kitchen of the loft caused or contributed to his difficulties in finding tenants.
Therefore, the application is dismissed. Name suppression
The application sought name suppression.
Although [Tenant 1] has not been substantially successful in these proceedings, I will grant name suppression on the grounds that this decision includes information about the previous Tenancy Tribunal order, and in that order name suppression was granted to the applicant.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

On 12 September 2023 I made a decision about a previous application made by the tenant in respect of this tenancy. That application raised multiple issues, including several aspects of non-compliance with the healthy homes standards.
One of the healthy homes issues addressed in the decision is the absence of mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen in the loft. The loft is a self- contained area that the tenants intended to, and did at times, rent out during their tenancy.
My findings were that: a. An exemption applies in respect of ventilation for the bathroom. The landlord provided a statement from an electrician confirming that it was not practical to install a ventilation fan in the bathroom due to the design and construction of the building. b. The landlord was obliged to have ventilation in the kitchen, even though there is no fixed stove there. c. Although it is possible that is also not practical to install a ventilation fan in the kitchen given its proximity to the bathroom, the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that an exemption applies, and no such evidence was provided. d. I made an award of exemplary damages for failure to meet the healthy homes standards. There were multiple proven breaches. I awarded a ‘global’ amount of $3,000.00.
[Tenant 2] left the tenancy in September 2023.
The tenancy ended on or around 11 January 2024.
[Tenant 1] filed this application on 3 December 2024.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 17 January 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Mr Peters (JS Property Management) and Ms Chang attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Findings
[Tenant 1]’s claim is based on my previous finding that the absence of mechanical ventilation in the kitchen in the loft is a breach of the healthy homes standards.
[Tenant 1] seeks exemplary damages and compensation. The compensation claim is based on an argument that his ability to rent out the loft area was compromised by the fact that it was not healthy homes compliant.
Mr Peters said that: a. There is no kitchen in the loft and therefore no obligation to have ventilation. There is no stove in that space, and the LIM report shows that this part of the loft is a “vanity”. b. Even if ventilation was required, it is very likely that an exemption applies due to the design and construction of this part of the property.
I am not persuaded on the first point. The LIM report describes the way that the property was described to the local Council, or perhaps the way that the property was set up when the LIM was created, but it does not necessarily reflect its actual current use. As noted in the previous order, the loft contains a kitchen sink and bench, and most reasonable tenants would assume that this part of the self-contained loft is intended to be used as a kitchen. Cooking puts moisture into the air, whether or not the cooking is done on a fixed stove, which is the reason why there is a healthy homes requirement for mechanical ventilation in the kitchen.
On the second point, I accept that it is probable that an exemption applies to mechanical ventilation in the kitchen because of the construction of the building. I noted this in the previous decision.
My finding is that it is not appropriate to make a further award for exemplary damages or compensation for the following reasons: a. The award of exemplary damages for non-compliance with the healthy homes standards in the previous order was substantial and appropriate. b. The landlord has taken significant steps, at considerable cost, to achieve healthy homes compliance. It was appropriate for the landlord to address the more serious healthy homes issues (insulation, drainage, draught stopping) ahead of this issue. c. Ventilation in the kitchen in the loft is a minor and somewhat “grey” issue. d. It is likely than an exemption applies. e. It would be unjust to penalise the landlord for not addressing this in the last few months of the tenancy. f. It is practically impossible for [Tenant 1] to prove that the absence of an extractor fan in the kitchen of the loft caused or contributed to his difficulties in finding tenants.
Therefore, the application is dismissed. Name suppression
The application sought name suppression.
Although [Tenant 1] has not been substantially successful in these proceedings, I will grant name suppression on the grounds that this decision includes information about the previous Tenancy Tribunal order, and in that order name suppression was granted to the applicant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085968 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085968 — Mould & damp

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