What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5131088 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 5131088?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131088?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12049587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5131088 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 5131088?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131088?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12049587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5131088 — Mould & damp

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant has claimed compensation and exemplary damages because the boarding house room she was renting and the kitchen were not reasonably clean when she moved in. She claims she suffered from multiple insect bites as a result. This caused her distress and she left the tenancy soon after she moved in. The landlord does not agree there was a breach. The questions I have to decides include: • Who has to prove the claim? • Has the tenant proved the boarding house room and kitchen were not reasonably clean?

Who has to prove the claim?

The tenant is the applicant. The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means the tenant must provide me with evidence which shows the claims are more probable than not. Has the tenant proved the boarding house room and kitchen were not reasonably clean?
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See s 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The tenant claims the landlord breached this obligation and she suffered insect bites as a result. The medical information I have confirms the tenant suffered from insect bites, or bed bug bites, or scabies. The tenant has provided photos showing the bites/sores and I accept she was uncomfortable and concerned for her health. She also said the presence of an electric fly catcher in the kitchen was proof the property was infested with insects.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The representative for the landlord said the bedding was old but clean at the start of the tenancy. He said the room was cleaned before the tenant moved in and the bedding was washed and dried using their commercial machines. When the tenant raised her concerns he sent someone to check the bedding and had the room sprayed for fleas as a precautionary response. He said the kitchen and dining room were regularly cleaned and they have someone on site who removes rubbish every day. He said the fly catcher is in the dining area, not the kitchen, and they have it is case there are flies inside. He did not agree there was a breach of section 45 RTA.
I find the tenant’s evidence is not better than the landlord’s evidence. I do not have any photos showing me the bedding or the room, so it is very hard for me to conclude that the room was not reasonably clean. It seems most likely to me there could be other explanations for the bites/sores. I find that having a fly catcher in a large kitchen/dining room in summer is not unusual and does not prove the boarding house was not reasonably clean. These findings mean the tenant has not proved her claim. The claims for breach of section 45 RTA, compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed. Other orders
The claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards was dismissed at the hearing because the standards relate specifically to heating, insulation, drainage, ventilation, and moisture ingress, which are not part of the tenant’s claim.
The tenant has asked for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
I am using my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant, even though she has not been the most successful party. This is because there has been no breach of the RTA and therefore the public interest is in the law rather than her name. The landlord’s name and the name of the boarding house are suppressed because the landlord has successfully defended the application.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant has claimed compensation and exemplary damages because the boarding house room she was renting and the kitchen were not reasonably clean when she moved in. She claims she suffered from multiple insect bites as a result. This caused her distress and she left the tenancy soon after she moved in. The landlord does not agree there was a breach. The questions I have to decides include: • Who has to prove the claim? • Has the tenant proved the boarding house room and kitchen were not reasonably clean?

Who has to prove the claim?

The tenant is the applicant. The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means the tenant must provide me with evidence which shows the claims are more probable than not. Has the tenant proved the boarding house room and kitchen were not reasonably clean?
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See s 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The tenant claims the landlord breached this obligation and she suffered insect bites as a result. The medical information I have confirms the tenant suffered from insect bites, or bed bug bites, or scabies. The tenant has provided photos showing the bites/sores and I accept she was uncomfortable and concerned for her health. She also said the presence of an electric fly catcher in the kitchen was proof the property was infested with insects.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The representative for the landlord said the bedding was old but clean at the start of the tenancy. He said the room was cleaned before the tenant moved in and the bedding was washed and dried using their commercial machines. When the tenant raised her concerns he sent someone to check the bedding and had the room sprayed for fleas as a precautionary response. He said the kitchen and dining room were regularly cleaned and they have someone on site who removes rubbish every day. He said the fly catcher is in the dining area, not the kitchen, and they have it is case there are flies inside. He did not agree there was a breach of section 45 RTA.
I find the tenant’s evidence is not better than the landlord’s evidence. I do not have any photos showing me the bedding or the room, so it is very hard for me to conclude that the room was not reasonably clean. It seems most likely to me there could be other explanations for the bites/sores. I find that having a fly catcher in a large kitchen/dining room in summer is not unusual and does not prove the boarding house was not reasonably clean. These findings mean the tenant has not proved her claim. The claims for breach of section 45 RTA, compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed. Other orders
The claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards was dismissed at the hearing because the standards relate specifically to heating, insulation, drainage, ventilation, and moisture ingress, which are not part of the tenant’s claim.
The tenant has asked for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
I am using my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant, even though she has not been the most successful party. This is because there has been no breach of the RTA and therefore the public interest is in the law rather than her name. The landlord’s name and the name of the boarding house are suppressed because the landlord has successfully defended the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131088 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131088 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who has to prove the claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who has to prove the claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions