What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5155291 about?

The tribunal order states: Manage My Rentals Limited As Agent For Jake Lin must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5155291?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155291?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11662518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5155291 about?

The tribunal order states: Manage My Rentals Limited As Agent For Jake Lin must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5155291?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155291?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11662518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Adams Terrace, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5155291 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5155291 — net $827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$800.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$827.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5155291 — net $827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$800.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$827.00

Order

Manage My Rentals Limited As Agent For Jake Lin must pay [The tenant/s] $827.00 immediately in accordance with the following table.
An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Prince and Mr Wilkinson represented the landlord agent company.
The parties had a one-year lease that ended in December 2024. There was an additional tenant, but he did not join these tenants in their claims as he lives elsewhere now.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] claim compensation and exemplary damages for an alleged breach by the landlord of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). They say that due to excessive moisture in the home they suffered from extreme mould. This damaged their belongings and detrimentally affected their health during their tenure.
Under section 45 of the RTA a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. The tenants allege that the property was not in a reasonable state of repair and the following enactments were breached: i. Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (the Regulations), specifically Regulation 15: Every house shall be free from dampness. ii. Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), specifically the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 RTA.
As the tenants are the applicants here, they are required to establish their claim in evidence to the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities. The evidence for the tenants
[Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] say that shortly into the tenancy they noticed frequent, excessive mould growth. In May, [Tenant 2] got very sick with respiratory tract infections and went to hospital. All tenants got ill at times over the course of the tenancy which was unusual for them as they are all athletes who perform at a high level and do not usually get ill.
[Tenant 2]’s evidence is that the mould was rampant in his room to the extent that he had to clean it monthly. He says water ran down the walls at times. His further evidence is that shoes sitting on his floor grew mould, as did stored belongings. When he realised the extent of the mould growth, he moved the belongings to under the heat pump upstairs.
In early June they sent a 14-day notice to remedy to the landlord seeking remedy for the mould throughout the property but particularly in [Tenant 2]’s room. With the email they provided photos of extensive mould in his room.
They engaged in a communication with Mr Wilkinson about the issue who asked them to clean the mould off, which they did.
No further conversation was had until they sought compensation for belongings that had been damaged due to mould in November when they were packing up to vacate. Negotiations were had, but resolution was not reached, and the tenancy ended in December.
Towards the end of the tenancy the window frame in the other tenant’s room rotted out which caused a big hole in his window frame. They say his other window could not close properly either. [Tenant 1] also says he initially had a plant growing in his bedroom window as the sill was rotted.
In support of their claim, the tenants have provided photos taken in December of [Tenant 2]’s room showing mould growth after he had vacated in late October. They also provided photos of mould in [Tenant 2]’s room in June and photos of the window in the third bedroom that had rotted out.
As an aside, but relevant, in March the hot water cylinder had leaked extensively throughout the house. This was remedied by the landlord within a reasonable amount of time although the plumber noted the leak had been occurring for some time and had caused mould growth.
[Tenant 2] and enant 1] say they ventilated daily, dried their clothes under the heat pump or in the drier, used a dehumidifier and an oil heater. They also say they cleaned the mould approximately monthly. Despite this the house was cold and damp and caused them illness.
They agree that they did not like to use the drier or heat pump due to the costs but say they did when they realised the extent of the mould.
They also say the plumber told them the insulation in the ceiling space was damp and had deteriorated.
[Tenant 2’s partner] gave oral evidence. She saw the property between September and October and noted that there was black mould on the roof of his room, down his walls and on his furniture and objects. She also saw mould in the other rooms and saw one tenant using a dehumidifier and the heat pump being used.
She further says she observed all tenants to ventilate frequently and saw and helped them clean regularly. Her observation was that the tenants kept the property clean, but the building was old and badly maintained, for example the bench and some window frames were rotting. She knew [Tenant 2]’s to be constantly ill over that period.
[Tenant 1]’s partner provided a statement that said that she observed extensive mould on the ceiling in [Tenant 2]’s room in August. She also observed the tenants to ventilate extensively, and says it was a very cold home to visit. The evidence for the landlord
Mr Wilkinson says he observed a lack of cleaning and ventilation in the June and July inspections. He considers these tenants do not follow direction and gave an example of being asked not to shower for 24 hours after the bathroom had been painted and yet doing so within the following hour. 1
Ms Prince’s evidence is that she agreed that as some of their belongings had clearly been damaged by mould, some compensation was warranted but she disagreed with the amount sought ($2,012.64). She says nothing further was heard from the tenants after their discussions in June and July about the mould until they sought compensation at the end of the tenancy, so they were unaware the mould was an ongoing issue.
She says they were notified about the hole in the window in October, immediately had it investigated, and it was replaced as soon as the tenants vacated in December. She says she was never told the other window in the room didn’t close and it was inspected at the end of the tenancy and did not present an issue.
Her evidence is also that all windows were inspected post tenancy, and the only other one that required a repair was in the kitchen. The others were repainted only.
Ms Prince says they have managed this property for a number of years and have not ever experienced mould of this level in it. They also note that they never had evidence of the tenants cleaning the mould as their observation of it remained consistent throughout the tenancy, and other than in [Tenant 2]’s room it was not extensive.
Finally, they provided documentation to support their claim that the home is compliant with the HHS. Corroboratory evidence
The photos of the house show an older home with mould on the exterior walls. The windows are the older style sash windows which are lifted to open. The ones on the bottom storey would not be able to be left open securely when the home was unoccupied.
The house is in Adams Terrace in Aro Valley, a well-known area for damp and cold. Little sun gets to the home.
The inspection photos show clothes and towels being dried inside. The photos are limited but do show windows closed and one set of curtains closed.
The invoice for replacing the window stated that the rimu timber bead around the windows in this bedroom are full of bora damage...not able to be reused as it tuned to powder upon removal...all the trims around the other window should be replaced as well as the two remaining on this window in the near future. 1 [Tenant 1] does not recall being told not to shower.
There is no evidence as to when the heat pump was last serviced, but it did not occur during this tenancy.
There are a number of photos of mould on the tenant’s belongings. Law and discussion
Section 45 of the RTA details the landlord’s obligations to 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.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
When it comes to mould, it is accepted that in New Zealand, many houses produce mould, particularly during cold, wet seasons. Mould is usually eradicated by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. Mould will grow in a home where humidity remains high and has difficulty surviving in low humidity. There are two ways to reduce humidity; by heating and ventilation, ventilation being the most basic requirement.
Responsibility for mould problems can rest with the tenant, if the tenant fails to air and heat the premises properly or causes excessive dampness in their activities such as drying clothes inside. On the other hand, the landlord must provide the tenants with the necessary means to heat and air the premises. If appropriate, fans and dehumidifiers should be provided. Security stays can be fitted to windows so that they can be left open but secure while tenants are away from the premises.
A landlord is also required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, the landlord has a responsibility to remedy the fault.
A tenant must tell the landlord where there is a problem with mould, so that appropriate action can be taken by the landlord.
In summary, premises must be able to be used and lived in, in a normal way, without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then it is the landlord’s problem. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat the premises when heating and ventilation is available, then it is the tenant’s problem.
In this case, there is evidence that is either contradictory or calls for the Tribunal to draw inferences. In such a situation the standard which the Tribunal adopts is the interpretation which a reasonable person would put on the evidence.
Clearly mould grew in this home, particularly in [Tenant 2]’s room. Having assessed the evidence very carefully, I find it more likely than not that any excessive damp in this home has arisen for a variety of reasons which I now discuss.
The house itself is prone to mould due to its location. This is not a landlord failing but a reality both parties must take into consideration. This means for a landlord that they may need to take extra steps such as extra vigilance at inspections and having clear discussions with tenants around ventilation, and in some cases the provision of dehumidifiers. For tenants, they will need to go into the tenancy knowing they will have to clean mould and ventilate and heat rigorously. A cheap rent in a dark area will likely be offset by a higher electricity bill.
The evidence does not establish that the windows in the third bedroom were well maintained. However, the evidence of the mould is in [Tenant 2]’s room primarily which had functioning windows. I am satisfied that the home is compliant with the HHS.
The evidence does not support the contention that the tenants failed to clean extensively although it does establish that they dried clothes and towels inside and did not regularly leave windows open.
The dehumidifier appeared to be used primarily by the other tenant and one oil heater was ‘rotated’ through rooms. There is no evidence [Tenant 2] used either in his room.
The tenants raised the issue of mould growing in the bedrooms after the extensive leak which would have contributed to the level of damp generally through the property. I am not satisfied that the landlord’s response in telling them to clean it was compliant with section 45, especially given the tenants advised of the health and property damage repercussions in the June 6 email.
A more appropriate response would have been to attend the property and discuss the situation with the tenants. The provision of a dehumidifier (particularly as that was requested by the tenants) and a discussion around drying linen inside may well have also helped. This is particularly so as the tenants were young students new to renting and new to Aro Valley. Given the extent of the mould on [Tenant 2]’s ceiling, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to undertake the cleaning of it themselves in the first instance. Finally, the heat pump may well have required a service.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that there were contributory acts by both parties that resulted in the mould damage. The tenants needed to have ventilated and heated more extensively and not dried their clothes/towels in their bedrooms. I acknowledge the cost implications in doing so however it is an elemental budgeting factor. The landlord obligations are discussed above.
The evidence does not establish that the landlord breached section 45 of the RTA by failing to comply with the HHS or failing to maintain the premise. The home was however not inherently free from dampness (Regulation 15). Therefore, the landlord is required to take steps to mitigate the issue.
Consequently, the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and as such exemplary damages are not awardable. However, I consider they should compensate the tenants for their loss. The tenants seek compensation for having to replace a number of items, some of which they are still using albeit in a damaged state.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.
Bedding and personal items have an expected life span according to current depreciation guidelines of approximately three years. Many of these items had exceeded that timeframe.
Taking into account all of the above, I find that an award of $800 is reasonable and justified by the evidence.
In coming to this figure, I have also considered that the landlord chose, in an act of goodwill, not to pursue potential tenant breaches of section 40(1)(e) of the RTA at the conclusion of the tenancy and approved the full return of the bond to the tenants.
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155291 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Adams Terrace, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155291 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Adams Terrace, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions