What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5121429 about?

The tribunal order states: Four Seasons Realty 2017 Limited As Agent For Harjit Singh must pay Melissa

How much money was awarded in case 5121429?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121429?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11837248-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5121429 about?

The tribunal order states: Four Seasons Realty 2017 Limited As Agent For Harjit Singh must pay Melissa

How much money was awarded in case 5121429?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121429?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11837248-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

90 Gladstone Road, Woodend, Woodend 7610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5121429 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing today.

This was a partial rehearing of the tenant application (5121429). When a rehearing was granted, the tenant was reminded that it is for her to articulate her claims.

I also note that the Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It considers the matters set out in an application, hears the evidence on those matters and makes a decision.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)

The rehearing was granted in respect of alleged drainage issues, garage door, toilet flushing and ranch slider door handle. At the start of the hearing the tenant indicated that it also had claims regarding the Healthy Homes Heating standard.

While the order granting a rehearing does not refer to a heating claim, I heard the tenants claim today. It is apparent that the issue was included in the tenant’s application and has not been determined by the Tribunal. Healthy Homes Claims

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating and drainage standards.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This property was required to comply within 90 days of 11 November 2021 which was the commencement date of the tenancy.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The drainage system must ensure the rental home, including the land that it sits on, is not subject to periodic flooding during or after normal rain. The functionality of guttering, downpipes and drainage can be difficult to visually assess during dry weather or light rain. However, it is possible to check that stormwater is connected to an appropriate outfall. An appropriate outfall will generally be the storm water system provided by a local council but may also include a properly working soakage system, natural watercourse, adequate water storage system or other constructed water way.

The evidence establishes that the tenant had issues with surface water drainage after rain throughout the tenancy. The landlord provided a Healthy Homes inspection report which stated the drainage system was compliant. The report does not record the type of drainage system. Nor does it record the steps taken for the assessor to confirm compliance. The report notes the drainage inspection is a visual inspection of above ground elements only.

This is a rural property. The wastewater was not connected to a Council waste; there was a septic tank. The landlord should not assume that the stormwater was connected to a Council outlet. The evidence shows that the tenant raised concerns with the surface water throughout the tenancy and at least someone within the landlord’s office was aware of the issue, but it was not properly investigated.

Having regard to the photographs that show the frequency of standing water after rain and the lack of any confirmation of connection to a proper outfall system, I find that theses premises did not have an efficient system for the removal of surface water during the tenancy.

The tenant did not establish that the effects of the surface water were as bad as she claimed, but I accept that it did cause inconvenience during the tenancy. I award $500 for loss of amenity for periodic surface water at the premises.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

These premises had an approved log burner and a heat pump. The tenant says that the heat pump was old and did not produce the correct heat out-put. The landlord says that the fire was the primary source of heating, and its output was three times the amount required by the heating standard.

Both parties provided me with completed heating calculator tools. The results were vastly different. The landlord assessed that the required heating was

2kW. That assessment was completed by an experienced Healthy Homes assessor. The tenant assessed that the required heating was 13.1kW. That assessment was completed by someone who replied to a request on a community Facebook page. The fire had an out put capacity of 15-21kW. The tenant says that the capacity of the heat pump was 8.5kW.

Taking account of all of the evidence, the tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the premises did not meet the Healthy Homes heating standard. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Repairs & Maintenance

The tenant also claims that the landlord has breached their repair and maintenance obligations.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant claimed that a toilet did not flush effectively during the tenancy and a ranch slider door was missing or broken. She provided some evidence in relation to those issues but said that she was “not really too concerned” about the issues. She did not put forward a compensation claim in respect of those matters. For the avoidance of doubt any claims regarding the toilet flushing and the door handle are dismissed.

The tenant was concerned about the garage door and claims that she could not access the garage throughout the tenancy. The evidence shows that she notified the landlord that repairs were required three time during the tenancy and each time the door was repaired. The email evidence shows that the door could be opened manually, but that the auto-roller needed attention. The tenant has not established that the door was faulty for the duration of the tenancy or that the landlord failed to have it repaired when issues arose. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing today.

This was a partial rehearing of the tenant application (5121429). When a rehearing was granted, the tenant was reminded that it is for her to articulate her claims.

I also note that the Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It considers the matters set out in an application, hears the evidence on those matters and makes a decision.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This property was required to comply within 90 days of 11 November 2021 which was the commencement date of the tenancy.

Both parties provided me with completed heating calculator tools. The results were vastly different. The landlord assessed that the required heating was

The tenant also claims that the landlord has breached their repair and maintenance obligations.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121429 — Mould & damp at 90 Gladstone Road, Woodend, Woodend 7610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121429 — Mould & damp at 90 Gladstone Road, Woodend, Woodend 7610

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