What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118728 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5118728?

The reconciled net award was $1,775.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118728?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11407791-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118728 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5118728?

The reconciled net award was $1,775.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118728?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11407791-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118728 — Mould & damp

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] to pay [The tenant/s] $1,775.00 immediately, calculated as follows:

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant attended with his mum, who represented him during the hearing. In truth, the Tenant did a very good job on his own, answering my questions clearly and articulately.
The Tenant has Asperger’s and bipolar disorder. His key worker, [The tenant/s support person], explained that the Tenant had difficulty finding accommodation due to his behavioural challenges and opposition to and unsuitability for emergency housing. He had been exited from previous living arrangements due to his behaviour.
The Tenant had previously lived with his mum but was asked to leave due to violent behaviour and property damage. His representative explained how his (birth) mother struggled with drug and alcohol issues. The Tenant has foetal alcohol syndrome, leading to significant intellectual limitations. The Tenant is medicated and has recently been assisted by community mental health.
[The tenant/s support person] assisted in securing housing for the Tenant in a sleepout near to the Landlord’s property. The Landlord and [The tenant/s support person] are colleagues, working in a community-based trust supporting individuals with disabilities. The Landlord suffers from PTSD and has raised a disabled child.
The parties signed an agreement referring to themselves as Tenant and Landlord, with New Zealand law, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, applying to their arrangement (the Agreement). The Agreement stipulated that rent would be $150 per week if the Tenant completed household chores, increasing to $200 per week if he did not. The Tenant admits he did not consistently perform the required chores and maintained his living space poorly, and so the rent increased to $200 per week. The rent included power.
The Tenant shared the Landlord’s facilities, but there were definite cleanliness issues identified by the Landlord, stemming from the Tenant’s access and use, and this was stressful for her. The Tenant did not keep the sleepout tidy. He admitted hoarding supermarket bags, allowing dirt to accumulate by not cleaning the floors and other surfaces. The Tenant developed a fear of using the Landlord’s amenities. He would hold his bladder until he could use the toilets where he attended course. He would wet the bed and did not wash or change the sheets and failed to ventilate the sleepout. In response to the Tenant’s mother’s concerned that the Tenant had been instructed to urinate on the fence outside, the Landlord explains, she knew the Tenant did not feel comfortable using her bathroom (likely because of the cleanliness issues she had identified and brought to his attention), and so she told him where he could urinate outside.
The Landlord became so frustrated with the Tenant’s cleanliness and reluctance to contribute, she communicated her dissatisfaction through messages and emails, eventually issuing a 14-day notice to the Tenant to remedy breaches of his obligations under the Act. When the Tenant did not comply, she followed up with an eviction notice, which I have found to be invalid. The uncontested evidence suggests that, had the Landlord followed proper procedures, the tenancy would likely have been lawfully terminated. The Tenant says the premises felt like a prison and he wanted to leave, but he thought he had to stay and could not leave because there was nowhere else for him to go.
The Tenant’s aunt assisted the Tenant in filing a Tenancy Tribunal application, which sought a full refund of rent ($3,000.00; the rent actually totalled $3,450.00), compensation for non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, and damages for breach of quiet enjoyment. Initially, the Tenant indicated he did not want compensation, but later sought an 80% rent refund; though, he could not provide reasons why he thought this discount was appropriate.
The Tenant provided minimal evidence regarding non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards but referenced mould growth and extreme temperatures, during summer and winter. It was clear the premises were uninsulated and intended to be used as a storage area, not a residential dwelling. The Landlord did not deny this.
The Landlord argued the Tenant’s own actions contributed to the dampness and that a heater was provided but not used.
What struck me about the Tenant, is he did not contradict himself and answered my questions thoughtfully, acknowledging his own shortcomings. In other words, the Tenant was honest in my estimation. Tenant’s Claims
Unlawful Premises (s 78A) – The Tenant claims he is entitled to a full refund of rent as the sleepout was not a lawful dwelling.
Failure to Maintain (s 45) – The Tenant alleges that the premises did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards, citing mould and inadequate heating.
Quiet Enjoyment (s 38) – The Tenant claims the Landlord’s partner intimidated him and that he did not feel safe using the main house facilities.
Compensation: a. Ordinary Damages – The Tenant seeks $3,000.00, representing, in the Tenant’s own submission, all the rent he paid. b. Exemplary Damages (s 109) – The Tenant seeks exemplary damages for unlawful acts associated with these claims (paragraphs 12-14). Landlord’s Response
The Landlord argues that she was unaware the sleepout was unlawful for residential use and did not intend to violate the law.
The Landlord claims the Tenant did not maintain the sleepout properly, failed to ventilate, and refused to use the provided heater.
The Landlord acknowledges sending messages expressing frustration but denies harassment.
The Landlord claims the Tenant left the sleepout in a filthy state and seeks $150 in cleaning costs.
The Landlord acknowledges procedural missteps in issuing an eviction notice but maintains the tenancy was untenable due to the Tenant’s conduct.
I noted the significant challenges and difficulties faced by both parties during this tenancy. The arrangement was fundamentally flawed from the outset, with a vulnerable person with high support needs living with a Landlord who had health conditions, including PTSD, and found the Tenant’s behaviours triggering. The Tribunal now turns to the legal issues to determine appropriate remedies. Are the Premises Unlawful Residential Premises under s 78A of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

Section 78A(2) states that premises are unlawful if they are not permitted to be occupied for residential purposes and if the landlord is responsible for this unlawful occupation due to non-compliance with legal requirements.
The sleepout was not approved for residential use and did not meet legal housing standards; the Landlord’s father told her it was built for storage.
The Tribunal accepts the Tenant had limited housing options and the Landlord was attempting to provide accommodation, albeit in an improper manner.
Under s 78A(4), the default position is a full refund of rent, unless special circumstances exist.
The Tribunal finds special circumstances exist, including the Tenant’s benefit of having accommodation and the severe lack of alternative options.
The Landlord did not seek legal advice or obtain the necessary approvals for residential use, renting the sleepout to a vulnerable Tenant with limited housing options.
While the Landlord benefited financially, the Tenant endured substandard living conditions, including poor maintenance, inadequate ventilation, and dampness affecting his well-being.
I remind myself that there are other parties who bear responsibility for the Tenant’s predicament, not solely the Landlord.
The Landlord failed to address these issues, demonstrating a lack of awareness of legal housing obligations.
A fair refund is determined at 50% of the rent paid, amounting to $1,725.00 (50% of $3,450.00).

Did the Landlord Fail to Maintain the Premises in Breach of s 45 of the Act?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 45(1) requires a Landlord to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all health and safety regulations.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The sleepout lacked insulation and was prone to mould growth, exacerbated by the Tenant’s failure to air out the space by opening windows during the day and remove wet bedding. The Tenant claims there was a slow leak, but his explanation was very imprecise: a little bit of water on the windowsill. I do not have any informative reports or photographs which I could use to assess the premises compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (including, whether there was adequate ventilation inside the premises), but I am satisfied there was no insulation present inside the makeshift sleepout (storage space).
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Considering the amounts already awarded, I award exemplary damages of $200.00 to the Tenant due to the intentional lack of insulation, contrary to the public interest. Did the Landlord Interfere with the Tenant’s Quiet Enjoyment in Breach of s 38 of the

Act?

Section 38(2) states that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of a tenant. Section 38(3) states that harassment is an unlawful act.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The Landlord sent multiple messages expressing frustration about the Tenant’s behaviour.
The Tenant claims the Landlord’s partner engaged in threatening conduct, getting up in his face and yelling at him. The Landlord’s partner allegedly told the Tenant that he knew some good people and some bad people. The Landlord’s partner was not present. The Landlord accepted that her partner did yell at the Tenant.
The Tenant claims the Landlord grabbed him while he was at the Landlord’s offices, and there were witnesses. [The tenant/s support person] did not see the incident occur. The Landlord denies the Tenant’s allegation of grabbing the Tenant’s arms, turning him forcefully and bringing him into her office. The Tenant did call the Police, however, and the Police approached the Tenant to ask whether he wanted to press charges, and he decided not to.
There is evidence of communication breakdown, and the Landlord’s frustration was palpable, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude harassment occurred as defined by the Act, but having reviewed the Landlord’s messages to the Tenant, and the Landlord’s partner’s behaviour, I came very close to finding harassment.

Is the Landlord Entitled to Compensation for Cleaning Costs?

The sleepout was left in an unclean state, requiring significant cleaning. I have seen the Landlord’s photographs.
The Tenant did not dispute this but noted the challenges he faced in maintaining cleanliness.
The Landlord charged $150 for cleaning, which is reasonable based on market rates. The Tenant is liable to pay $150.00 to the Landlord for cleaning costs.
The Tribunal recognises the difficult circumstances both parties faced. This arrangement was fundamentally unworkable, given the Tenant’s care needs and the Landlord’s personal challenges. However, legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act must be upheld to ensure tenants are not placed in unlawful or unsuitable housing.
I grant name suppression to both parties, considering the sensitive issues addressed in this decision, and noting the overall sincerity of the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118728 — Mould & damp

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118728 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Did the Landlord Fail to Maintain the Premises in Breach of s 45 of the Act?

Act?

Is the Landlord Entitled to Compensation for Cleaning Costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Did the Landlord Fail to Maintain the Premises in Breach of s 45 of the Act?

Act?

Is the Landlord Entitled to Compensation for Cleaning Costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions