What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145429 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5145429?

Compensation: $134.07 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $52.14 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145429?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12273297-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145429 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5145429?

Compensation: $134.07 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $52.14 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145429?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12273297-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5145429 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5145429. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for lack of ground cover and insulation	$134.07	Compensation for lack of ground cover and insulation
Compensation for electrical circuit issue	$52.14	Compensation for electrical circuit issue
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.
[The landlords] must pay [the tenants] $213.21 immediately.
The Bond Centre to return the bond of $1,042.50 to the tenant. DescriptionTenant Compensation for lack of ground cover and insulation$134.07 Compensation for electrical circuit issue$52.14 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$213.21

Reasons

All of the parties attended the hearing.
Clay Reeve of Barfoot & Thompson appeared for the landlords. Introduction
The tenancy began on 28 October 2023 and for this tenant ended on 24 September 2024. The tenant withdrew from the tenancy on that date, although her partner and co- tenant’s tenancy did not end until 22 November 2024.
The landlords bought the house only a short while before the tenancy began. The house was tenanted by different tenants at that time. The vendor assured the landlords that the house was compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and a later report confirmed that it was.
When the original tenants moved out, the landlords advertised the premises as available to rent and HHS compliant. That the house was HHS compliant was important to the tenant because she and her partner had an eight-year-old daughter with asthma and the tenant was several months pregnant.
Soon after the tenancy began it was discovered that the house’s ground cover was inadequate. It did not cover a sloped bank and another part was damaged. Also, about a square metre or two of insulation had not been replaced after a plumber did some work to the hot water cylinder on 8 December 2023.
The landlords remediated these issues on about 20 December 2023, well within the 120-day grace period for compliance.
One of the consequences of the landlord’s extending the ground cover was that the tenant could no longer use a small under-house storage area to store things.
One of the house’s electrical wiring circuits failed on about 5 November 2023. It was not remedied until 27 November 2023.
The tenant reported that the houses wooden front steps were slippery and deteriorating on 26 May 2024. The main problem was probably a slippery damp algae-type bloom that was establishing itself in the damp dark conditions. It is the sort of thing that could be scrubbed off with a brush and detergent or a Wet and Forget type product or water blasted off.
On 6 June 2024, the landlords’ handyperson water blasted the steps and installed some anti-slip tape. However, on 18 August 2024 the tenant and her daughter reported they had slipped on the steps.
On 31 August 2024, the landlords installed a DOC-style mesh over the steps to provide more lasting anti-slip properties.
On about 8 January 2024, the tenant reported that water was puddling on parts of the ground cover. The landlord’s contractors investigated the issue and after some effort located a hot water cylinder leak. On 30 January 2024, the contractors replaced the hot water cylinder’s hot water relief valve which fixed the problem.
The main issues for determination are: a. Did the landlords breach the HHS? b. Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlords breach the HHS?

The tenant claims the landlords breached the HHS for water ingress and drainage and for insulation. Legal principles
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires that landlords comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
In this case, the tenancy began on 28 October 2023, so the landlords had to comply within 120 days of that date, which is 24 February 2024.
The tenant claims the landlord breached the standards for water ingress and drainage but that claim falls more relevantly into the tenant’s failure to maintain claim and will be addressed there. Discussion
The landlords did not breach the HHS because they remedied the ground cover and insulation issues well before the compliance date.
However, the landlords had advertised the premises as HHS-compliant already. The tenant was under a lot of strain at the time the tenancy began, and it was incredibly important to her that the house complied with the standards. That being so, it appropriate to order compensation for the loss of amenity accruing from the ground cover and insulation issues. Compensation
The landlords warranted to the tenant that the premises was HHS-compliant. Unbeknownst to them it was not.
Whilst the landlords did not deliberately mislead the tenant, she should be compensated for the shortfall in amenity involved in the HHS non-compliance.
I quantify the approximate loss of amenity at about 2.5 per cent of the weekly rent which is $17.38 per week. The relevant period is from the beginning of the tenancy until 20 December 2023 when the landlords remedied the issues.

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant complains about the premises’ wiring and its front stairs. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 3 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 4 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Discussion
The tenant’s partner was a qualified electrician. The landlords say they thought that he had the issue – which simply required a 6 amp RCD to be substituted for a 16 amp 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 3 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 4 See n 1. RCD – under control. They ensured the switchboard has a permanent 16 amp RCD on 27 November 2023.
Any repair was done with a few weeks, which I find was within a reasonable time.
Nonetheless, the tenant did suffer a loss of amenity in the premises through being inconvenienced by not being able to use electrical appliances simultaneously without tripping the RCD. I set the loss of amenity at 2.5 per cent of the rent for this loss of amenity.
The premises’ wooden front stairs are bare wood. The stairs are susceptible to lichen- type growth which can make them slippery in damp conditions. The slipperiness could be prevented by regular cleaning with a scrubbing brush and detergent for instance. Such cleaning is a tenant obligation under the s 40 of the RTA. On the other hand there is an argument that the stairs were too vulnerable to slipperiness, so the landlords have a duty to improve the stairs.
The landlords had the stairs water blasted the within about 10 days of the tenant’s reporting the issue. They also improved the stairs by installing anti-slip tape. Unfortunately, these measures were not long-lasting. After the tenant and her daughter’s falls, the landlords made a more long-lasting improvement to the stairs within about two weeks.
In my view, the landlords did not fail to maintain the stairs to a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant was concerned about water pooling on the moisture barrier under the house. The landlords investigated the issue and resolved it within a reasonable time. There was no breach of s 45(1)(b). Compensation
For the electrical issue, I order the landlords pay the tenant $52.14. The landlords were not in breach of their maintenance obligations. However, there is an implied term within the tenancy agreement that the premises will provide full amenity. The electricity problem meant that the tenant did not have full amenity in the premises. Other matters
During the hearing, the tenant discussed the size of the fridge, which was inadequate for her family. However, that concern does not raise a claim under the RTA.
Once the ground under the house was fully covered with a moisture barrier, a small brick-floored area was no longer available for storage. That was unfortunate, but the landlords did not breach the tenancy agreement or the RTA by installing the moisture barrier. Small basement areas can be a welcome bonus to tenants to use for storage but the lack of them in circumstances like these does not call for the Tribunal’s intervention.
The landlords’ agent’s automated systems and administrative errors led to the tenant receiving inaccurate demands for rent and water. That should not have occurred. I am not aware that these inadvertent notices amount to a breach, however. Filing fee
The landlords are ordered to reimburse the tenant for the filing fee because she has partly succeeded in her claim, and I consider that is appropriate. 5 Bond
The Tribunal will order that the tenant’s share of the bond will be released to her. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings, I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the parties’ conduct on any other circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal must order non-publication.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5145429. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for lack of ground cover and insulation	$134.07	Compensation for lack of ground cover and insulation
Compensation for electrical circuit issue	$52.14	Compensation for electrical circuit issue
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.
[The landlords] must pay [the tenants] $213.21 immediately.
The Bond Centre to return the bond of $1,042.50 to the tenant. DescriptionTenant Compensation for lack of ground cover and insulation$134.07 Compensation for electrical circuit issue$52.14 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$213.21

Reasons

All of the parties attended the hearing.
Clay Reeve of Barfoot & Thompson appeared for the landlords. Introduction
The tenancy began on 28 October 2023 and for this tenant ended on 24 September 2024. The tenant withdrew from the tenancy on that date, although her partner and co- tenant’s tenancy did not end until 22 November 2024.
The landlords bought the house only a short while before the tenancy began. The house was tenanted by different tenants at that time. The vendor assured the landlords that the house was compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and a later report confirmed that it was.
When the original tenants moved out, the landlords advertised the premises as available to rent and HHS compliant. That the house was HHS compliant was important to the tenant because she and her partner had an eight-year-old daughter with asthma and the tenant was several months pregnant.
Soon after the tenancy began it was discovered that the house’s ground cover was inadequate. It did not cover a sloped bank and another part was damaged. Also, about a square metre or two of insulation had not been replaced after a plumber did some work to the hot water cylinder on 8 December 2023.
The landlords remediated these issues on about 20 December 2023, well within the 120-day grace period for compliance.
One of the consequences of the landlord’s extending the ground cover was that the tenant could no longer use a small under-house storage area to store things.
One of the house’s electrical wiring circuits failed on about 5 November 2023. It was not remedied until 27 November 2023.
The tenant reported that the houses wooden front steps were slippery and deteriorating on 26 May 2024. The main problem was probably a slippery damp algae-type bloom that was establishing itself in the damp dark conditions. It is the sort of thing that could be scrubbed off with a brush and detergent or a Wet and Forget type product or water blasted off.
On 6 June 2024, the landlords’ handyperson water blasted the steps and installed some anti-slip tape. However, on 18 August 2024 the tenant and her daughter reported they had slipped on the steps.
On 31 August 2024, the landlords installed a DOC-style mesh over the steps to provide more lasting anti-slip properties.
On about 8 January 2024, the tenant reported that water was puddling on parts of the ground cover. The landlord’s contractors investigated the issue and after some effort located a hot water cylinder leak. On 30 January 2024, the contractors replaced the hot water cylinder’s hot water relief valve which fixed the problem.
The main issues for determination are: a. Did the landlords breach the HHS? b. Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlords breach the HHS?

The tenant claims the landlords breached the HHS for water ingress and drainage and for insulation. Legal principles
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires that landlords comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
In this case, the tenancy began on 28 October 2023, so the landlords had to comply within 120 days of that date, which is 24 February 2024.
The tenant claims the landlord breached the standards for water ingress and drainage but that claim falls more relevantly into the tenant’s failure to maintain claim and will be addressed there. Discussion
The landlords did not breach the HHS because they remedied the ground cover and insulation issues well before the compliance date.
However, the landlords had advertised the premises as HHS-compliant already. The tenant was under a lot of strain at the time the tenancy began, and it was incredibly important to her that the house complied with the standards. That being so, it appropriate to order compensation for the loss of amenity accruing from the ground cover and insulation issues. Compensation
The landlords warranted to the tenant that the premises was HHS-compliant. Unbeknownst to them it was not.
Whilst the landlords did not deliberately mislead the tenant, she should be compensated for the shortfall in amenity involved in the HHS non-compliance.
I quantify the approximate loss of amenity at about 2.5 per cent of the weekly rent which is $17.38 per week. The relevant period is from the beginning of the tenancy until 20 December 2023 when the landlords remedied the issues.

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant complains about the premises’ wiring and its front stairs. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 3 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 4 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Discussion
The tenant’s partner was a qualified electrician. The landlords say they thought that he had the issue – which simply required a 6 amp RCD to be substituted for a 16 amp 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 3 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 4 See n 1. RCD – under control. They ensured the switchboard has a permanent 16 amp RCD on 27 November 2023.
Any repair was done with a few weeks, which I find was within a reasonable time.
Nonetheless, the tenant did suffer a loss of amenity in the premises through being inconvenienced by not being able to use electrical appliances simultaneously without tripping the RCD. I set the loss of amenity at 2.5 per cent of the rent for this loss of amenity.
The premises’ wooden front stairs are bare wood. The stairs are susceptible to lichen- type growth which can make them slippery in damp conditions. The slipperiness could be prevented by regular cleaning with a scrubbing brush and detergent for instance. Such cleaning is a tenant obligation under the s 40 of the RTA. On the other hand there is an argument that the stairs were too vulnerable to slipperiness, so the landlords have a duty to improve the stairs.
The landlords had the stairs water blasted the within about 10 days of the tenant’s reporting the issue. They also improved the stairs by installing anti-slip tape. Unfortunately, these measures were not long-lasting. After the tenant and her daughter’s falls, the landlords made a more long-lasting improvement to the stairs within about two weeks.
In my view, the landlords did not fail to maintain the stairs to a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant was concerned about water pooling on the moisture barrier under the house. The landlords investigated the issue and resolved it within a reasonable time. There was no breach of s 45(1)(b). Compensation
For the electrical issue, I order the landlords pay the tenant $52.14. The landlords were not in breach of their maintenance obligations. However, there is an implied term within the tenancy agreement that the premises will provide full amenity. The electricity problem meant that the tenant did not have full amenity in the premises. Other matters
During the hearing, the tenant discussed the size of the fridge, which was inadequate for her family. However, that concern does not raise a claim under the RTA.
Once the ground under the house was fully covered with a moisture barrier, a small brick-floored area was no longer available for storage. That was unfortunate, but the landlords did not breach the tenancy agreement or the RTA by installing the moisture barrier. Small basement areas can be a welcome bonus to tenants to use for storage but the lack of them in circumstances like these does not call for the Tribunal’s intervention.
The landlords’ agent’s automated systems and administrative errors led to the tenant receiving inaccurate demands for rent and water. That should not have occurred. I am not aware that these inadvertent notices amount to a breach, however. Filing fee
The landlords are ordered to reimburse the tenant for the filing fee because she has partly succeeded in her claim, and I consider that is appropriate. 5 Bond
The Tribunal will order that the tenant’s share of the bond will be released to her. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings, I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the parties’ conduct on any other circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal must order non-publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145429 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145429 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords breach the HHS?

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords breach the HHS?

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions