Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5108135 — Property damage
Decided 14 May 2025 · Published 14 May 2025 · Application 5108135
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. 3.
Reasons
Background
- This tenancy began on 27 November 2015. [The landlord/s] purchased the property with Ms Drake as a sitting tenant. Ms Drake lived at the property for approximately ten years in total. The tenancy ended on 10 March 2025.
- The tenant’s application raises issues relating to mould and leaks, the stove, the front door, smoke alarms, and the landlord coming to the property without notice.
- The landlord’s application sought rent arrears, water rates, and repairs and painting of the front door.
- In the adjournment order I noted that [The landlord/s] could amend the application to include new claims after he re-took possession of the premises. [The landlord/s] amended his application to include a claim for the cost of replacing the toilet.
- [The landlord/s] subsequently advised that Ms Drake had cleared all of the rent arrears. Water rates
- Ms Drake did not dispute this part of the landlord’s claim.
- The total amount outstanding (Council invoices less payments) is $733.21. This includes supply charges totalling $200.40, which the landlord must pay 1 .
- Ms Drake owes $532.81 for water rates. Front door
- The claim seeks the cost of repairing and painting the front door.
- The front door ‘collapsed’ in or around November 2024. Some repairs were done, but the door did not fully open after that time.
- [The landlord/s] said that when he talked to Ms Drake about what happened to the door, she originally acknowledged that she was responsible, then later changed her mind.
- Ms Drake said that: a. The door was somewhat warped and had gaps around it from the beginning of the tenancy. b. At the beginning of the tenancy the door did not have a catch, so it was vulnerable to slamming in the wind. c. The door deteriorated over time until if finally gave way.
- In any claim for damage the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that the damage was due to a careless or intentional action by the tenant or someone for whom the tenant was responsible. 2 1 Section 39(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
- The front door is also part of Ms Drake’s application. Ms Drake said that she could not use this door in the latter part of her tenancy, which meant that she had to use the back door of the property when she was moving out.
- [The landlord/s] did not disagree that there were issues with the door before it finally failed in November 2024.
- It is practically impossible to know the combination of factors that ultimately led to the door’s demise. It is mostly likely to be a mix of age and accumulated damage from slamming, some of which may have occurred in circumstances that amounted to carelessness by the tenant, and some not.
- The Tribunal is required to determine disputes between landlords and tenants “according the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case” 3 .
- Applying those principles my finding is that: a. There is not enough evidence to show that tenant carelessness was the proximate or primary cause of the damage to the door. b. The tenant is not liable for the repair cost. c. There was a genuine dispute about liability for the damage to the door and [The landlord/s] did his best to repair the door to a working standard [The landlord/s] is not liable to pay any compensation to Ms Drake. Toilet bowl
- [The landlord/s] provided a photographing showing a large piece missing from the front inner ‘lip’ of the toilet bowl.
- The damage could only be caused by a significant physical impact to that area.
- Ms Drake said that she was not living at the unit for the last couple of weeks of the tenancy, but she was returning most days to tidy and remove her belongings. Ms Drake said that she was there on the last day, 10 March, but she did not see this damage.
- [The landlord/s] entered the unit immediately after the tenancy ended and he took the photograph then.
- I am satisfied that: a. The damage occurred during the period of this tenancy. b. The damage can only be the consequence of a careless or intentional action. 2 Section 49B(8)(a)(ii) RTA 3 Section 85 RTA c. The tenant is legally liable for the damage.
- The cost of replacing the toilet is proven. Tenant application
- The issues to address in the tenant’s application are: a. Mould and roof leaks. b. Stove. c. Leak in shower.
- At the hearing: a. Ms Drake withdrew the smoke alarm issue. b. We clarified that [The landlord/s] was not legally required to give notice when he came to the property to mow the lawns.
- Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 4
- If this tenancy had continued, the healthy homes compliance date would have been 1 July 2025. Leaks / mould
- Ms Drake said that: a. There was mould on the bathroom ceiling, part of the ceiling in a bedroom, and in the lounge. b. The problems persisted for a long time. c. [The landlord/s] ultimately replaced the roof.
- [The landlord/s] said that: a. The roof was “patched” and repainted in March 2018. b. A “small patch of ceiling mould” appeared in one of the bedrooms in July 2020. c. Mould began to appear in the lounge in September 2021. d. A new roof was installed in November 2024, with a roof underlay. e. He had the mould tested and the results showed no potentially harmful ‘black mould’ (stachybotrys chartarum).
- I accept that [The landlord/s]’s timeline is accurate. 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
- The mere presence of mould in a tenanted property does not in itself amount to a breach of the landlord’s legal duty. Landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. This means that they must respond promptly and appropriately to maintenance issues that come to their attention (usually informed by the tenant or noticed at in inspection).
- In this instance: a. The deficiencies in the roof, in particular the absence of a moisture barrier, allowed mould to develop and appear in patches on the ceilings of parts of the house. b. The mould was not of a potentially harmful type, and there is no evidence of excessively damp conditions generally in the house. c. The timeframe to resolution of the problem by way of a new roof was not unreasonable given the size of that job. d. The mould in the bathroom ceiling appears to have other contributing factors, including the fact that the laundry is also located there, the window in that room can be difficult to open and close, and there was a paint job done during the tenancy (by the tenant’s ex-partner) that has not aged well.
- My finding is that there is no proven breach of the landlord’s legal duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and no breach of the landlord’s healthy homes obligations (the compliance date for this tenancy was not until 1 July 2025).
- Therefore I will not make an award of compensation. Stove
- Ms Drake said that she had problems with the elements on the stove (three out of four did not work) and she eventually gave up using the stovetop.
- Ms Drake acknowledged that when she raised this issue with [The landlord/s], he was able to get the elements working, but then they stopped working again.
- Complicating matters, the stove that Ms Drake is referring to is the ‘new’ (second hand) stove that was installed in 2019. The original stove had to be replaced because it had problems with the elements.
- Further complicating matters, [The landlord/s] said that he had the new stove tested after the end of Ms Drake’s tenancy and a fault was found in the simmerstat and thermostat, but this was not the same type of problem that Ms Drake described, which was that the elements did not work at all. [The landlord/s] said that the ‘elements not working’ problem was in fact due to Ms Drake not re-connecting the elements properly after removing them to clean the tray below the element.
- There is limited and conflicting information available to me, relating to two stoves over a period of many years.
- In this instance Ms Drake has the burden of proof to show that [The landlord/s] failed to respond promptly and appropriately to a maintenance issue that she brought to his attention.
- The evidence available to me is not sufficient, or sufficiently clear, to support a finding that [The landlord/s] failed to meet this maintenance obligation. Leak in shower
- Ms Drake said that there was a leak from the shower head that ran down the wall and into the wall cavity through a gap between the bath and shower wall.
- Ms Drake said that over time the floor in parts of the bathroom and the toilet became soft.
- [The landlord/s] said that: a. There is no gap between the shower wall and the bath. b. There is no moisture damage to the floor in the bathroom and toilet.
- Again, the only evidence available to me is the conflicting statements of the tenant and landlord.
- Ms Drake has the burden of proof.
- The claim is not proven. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
- The landlord sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the basis that the landlord was substantially successful in the proceedings. 5 I will also award the landlord the filing fee for the application. 6
- The tenant did not seek name suppression.
- The proven amount owed to the landlord exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be paid to the landlord. N Blake 5 Section 95A(1) RTA 6 Section 102(4)(a) RTA 16 April 2025