What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143069 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 5143069?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143069?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12070854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143069 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 5143069?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143069?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12070854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5143069 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143069 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: bathroom repairs	$200.00	bathroom repairs
Compensation: quiet enjoyment	$200.00	quiet enjoyment
Net award	$400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$400.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143069 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: bathroom repairs	$200.00	bathroom repairs
Compensation: quiet enjoyment	$200.00	quiet enjoyment
Net award	$400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$400.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlords’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with the landlord attending by telephone.
This tenancy began on 18 November 2023. The current rent is $710.00 per week, but previously was $670.00 per week.
In May 2024 the tenants reported to the landlord that the bathroom had flooded. The landlord contacted their insurer and arranged for flood remediation work and repairs. Later, moisture was detected in the adjoining bedroom. While the bathroom repairs were being undertaken, the tenants moved out, for four days, and stayed at an Airbnb. The tenants’ application
The tenants have filed an application seeking compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of landlord obligations. The tenants have since advised that exemplary damages are no longer sought.
The tenants claim the house is mouldy and therefore does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). They seek compensation for lack of use of the bathroom, adjoining bedroom, disruption due to repairs to the bathroom and bedroom, persistent mould issues during winter, the requirement to purchase a dehumidifier at their own expense, disruption caused by repairs and short notice resulting in relocation to an Airbnb property. They seek a rent reduction for two months of the unusable space, reimbursement for the Airbnb costs and the dehumidifier. They also seek compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
The tenants provided photographic evidence, a timeline of events showing communication from May to November 2024, and other documentary evidence including a receipt for the Airbnb accommodation.
The tenants’ oral evidence at the hearing is that the flood was in May 2024, and they noted mould around the house in June 2024. They purchased a dehumidifier to assist with the mould issue.
Concerning the bathroom, the tenants state the landlord told them the builders would come to repair the bathroom, and they were given alternate places to shower. They felt the options suggested by the landlord were not appropriate and the landlord was being inconsiderate. They have a 7-month-old baby, they were first time parents and needed the full use of the bathroom. There was only one bathroom in the house. They stayed in the Airbnb for four days and it was 7 days before the work was completed. They issued a 14-day notice to the landlord.
The tenants state that having a commercial dehumidifier impacted their quality of sleep. They felt their concerns were not heard. While acknowledging the compensation paid by the landlord, they felt it was not enough. The expectation was that they would live in a healthy home.
The tenants described the areas of mould and note, with reference to photographic evidence, that it was present after the May flood and in the spare room behind the bathroom. They also noted mould on the curtains, living area and bedroom. Landlord’s response
In response the landlord has provided detailed written submissions, documentary and photographic evidence, along with oral evidence.
At the hearing, the landlord referred to their written submissions, setting out a timeline and responding to the tenants’ claims. In summary, the landlord submitted that they had provided clear evidence that all complaints of mould were promptly addressed, the property was habitable at all times, repairs were managed promptly and appropriately, and the tenants voluntarily vacated the premises despite alternative arrangements being available. The evidence provided demonstrated that they had acted proactively to accommodate and assist the tenants, lawfully, in good faith and beyond their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord noted the tenants had reneged on a series of historic agreements made and accepted. The primary concern regarding mould was addressed promptly and professionally. Insurance assessors confirmed no mould was directly caused by the flood. The landlord detailed the financial compensation provided to the tenants. This totalled $1,286.65 and an additional $130.00, which the landlord paid for professional mould treatment confirmed to be caused by the tenants’ lack of ventilation.
The landlord states that they consulted with Tenancy Services every step of the way. In terms of the bathroom, they offered alternatives and made efforts to resolve the issues. The shower was not functional for four days and they compensated the tenants. Some further paint work had to be done and the total compensation was $365.42, which the tenants confirmed receiving. The tenants had refused the builder entry to the house to perform pre-arranged necessary repairs.
The landlord states there was no requirement for the tenants to move out when the building repair work was being done, since the premises was habitable. The tenants unilaterally decided to move out. There was no mould prior to the tenants moving in. They had offered to arrange for a professional assessment to assess the cause of the mould, but the tenants declined. Tenants’ reply
In reply, the tenants state they were not told about the date for the repair work and then were given short notice. Until the bathroom was fully completed, they did not consider the house to be useable, and it felt like a construction site. They were not able to use the bathroom for 7 days. They sought $2000.00 in compensation, less the $365.42 already received. Legal framework: general principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Mould
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1 The landlord is also required to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 3 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
On the issue of mould, as noted by the Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman, 4 mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Adjudicator Woodhouse explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.
In Auckland, many houses produce mould, particularly in view of the levels of humidity in this region. Such mould can usually be addressed by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, then the landlord will have a responsibility to remedy the fault. As noted by the Tribunal in Hullia v Tran & Vu 5 the premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way, without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be 1 Section 45(1)(b) 2 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 3 Section 40(1)(d) 4 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 5 [2018] NZTT Manukau 4138867 done, then the problem of mould falls on the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property.
The presence of mould in a property can be caused by the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation. The fact that some mould was in the house is not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair, and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive: Repia v Walsh Trust. 6
In this case, the tenants’ photographic evidence of mould is noted. However, as the cases referred to above have observed, the presence of mould, in itself, is insufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord. In this regard, the landlord has produced evidence which challenges the tenants’ view regarding the cause of the mould.
The landlord’s evidence includes a detailed report from the insurer, [Insurance Company], which provides an opinion on the likely cause of the mould. The report notes the insurance assessor’s opinion that the type of mould was unlikely to be the result of moisture from flooding. The report includes the insurance assessor’s comments of other likely causes of the mould, noting that it was winter, and likely arose from not opening windows and ventilating the house during the day (due to the cold), and condensation from daily activities.
There is also the report from [The Builder] who attended the premises for repairs. He did not consider the mould to be the result of a leaking pipe, noting that the bathroom had a working extractor.
The landlord further states that prior to the tenants living at the premises, they lived there, and the house was mould free for four years. They note inspections conducted by a professional inspection service did not identify any mould. In any event, professional mould treatment and cleaning was arranged by the landlord.
Overall, I find that the tenants have been unable to establish, with sufficient evidence, that there were defects in the premises which have caused the mould to develop. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Accordingly, the landlord is not liable to compensate the tenants for the purchase of the dehumidifier. Repairs
As noted above, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I am satisfied that the landlord has complied with their obligation in this regard. 6 DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011
The documentary evidence produced by the landlord shows that they promptly attended to the issue of the bathroom flood when notified of it. There is evidence of e-mail correspondence with the tenants, and supporting evidence of contact with the insurer. Flood remediation work was arranged, with JAEs attending to drying of the affected area. Repair work was then undertaken, and there is a report from the builder who carried out the work. The landlord also arranged for necessary plumbing work.
There is also evidence to show that the landlord investigated the cause of the moisture in the bedroom, within a reasonable timeframe. There were delays due to the involvement of an insurance assessor. It is also acknowledged that the parties discussed compensation during this period, and the tenants received some compensation from the landlord.
Overall, I find that the landlord has been responsive to the tenants’ requests to attend to repairs once notified, and has endeavoured to resolve the issues in a timely way. I also acknowledge there have been delays that the tenants have found to be unacceptable.
In terms of the impact of the moisture in the third bedroom, I am satisfied that the landlord has appropriately compensated the tenants for the loss of amenity of this room.
In terms of the bathroom, while noting the amount already compensated by the landlord, I consider that the tenants’ situation, with a 7-month-old baby, the disruption from not having a fully functioning bathroom for at least 4 days and up to 7 days, was particularly significant. Although the premises was still habitable, their reasons for moving out were, in the circumstances, understandable. Accordingly, they are to be compensated an additional amount of $200.00. Notice of repairs and unlawful entry
Under section 48 of the RTA, a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, and repairs and maintenance. 7 If a landlord enters the premises in contravention of section 48, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
In terms of the landlord’s notice to the tenants of the repairs to the bathroom, there is evidence of early notice on 17 July 2024, of a general nature, regarding the repairs to be undertaken, and ongoing communication. The landlord points to further correspondence on 12 September 2024, advising that the work will be undertaken in 2 weeks’ time, and the tenants were to be informed once the landlord had more accurate timings. 7 See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA
The actual time of the intended repairs was given via email on 23 September 2024, which was 24 hours prior to the work starting on 24 September 2024. Under section 48(2)(d), a landlord is required to give 24 hours notice of entry for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs. So, the landlord has complied with this requirement and the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Section 38(1) of the RTA states that the tenant is entitled to have “quiet enjoyment” of the premises without interruption by the landlord or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf. This provision imposes a limited duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises. 8 Section 38(2) of the RTA further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 9 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.
Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, 10 up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 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." 11
The tenants claim there has been a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premises, due to disruption from repairs, noise, and inconvenience of having builders and other tradespeople come to the premises. They note the emotional impact. The evidence from both parties shows there have been multiple visits by tradespeople to carry out repair work, which the tenants found to be disruptive. The communication also shows that the landlord has tried to compensate the tenants for some of these disruptions, and the amount received in compensation is noted.
Taking all these factors into account, I find there has been a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises. This is because of the overall impact of the multiple events involving the landlord’s contractors at the premises, and noise from the repair/remediation work. Accordingly, taking into account the nature of 8 ‘Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice’ 4 th edition, D. Grinlinton (2012) 9 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 10 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 11 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. the breach, the duration, and its effect on the tenants, I consider the tenants ought to be compensated in the amount of $200.00. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143069 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143069 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions