What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5157931 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5157931?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157931?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11819250-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5157931 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5157931?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157931?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11819250-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5157931 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.

Mr [tenant’s surname] attended for both of the tenants.

Melissa Benge and Lisa Oquist attended the hearing for the landlords.

The tenants claim for mould damage to their elongings caused by a crack in the premises’ original concrete slab. Background

The tenancy began on 9 February 2024 and is continuing.

The premises is a 72m 2 converted garage/sleepout. The conversion was completed to high standard and in accordance with building and Council rule about 10 years ago.

The tenants like the premises and have no desire to move. However, in late October 2024, they were dismayed to find that a lot of their furniture and some of their clothing had been seriously affected by mould. Items that cannot be salvaged include three dressers, a bedside table, a bedframe, a cupboard, a bookshelf, and three pairs of shoes.

The mould was particularly bad in the spare bedroom where the tenants kept their clothing and other belongings.

The tenants reported the problem to the landlord’s agent, who responded promptly by having a builder attend to identify what might be causing the issue. The builder, Allan Harris of Tradetech Build Paint found two main issues that were likely contributing to excessive damp in the premises: cracks in the original concrete slab and overgrown foliage. The landlords fixed those issues without delay.

The tenants application is framed as the landlords breaching the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) in respect to moisture.

However, in my view the claim is better framed as a claim that the landlords failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard of repair as required by s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The issues the Tribunal must determine are: 1 a. Whether the landlords breached the HHS; or b. Whether the landlords failed to maintain the premises.

Did the landlords fail to comply with the HHS moisture standard?

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

The Tribunal heard evidence from the builder who identified the premises’ dampness issues, Allan Harris. Mr Harris opined that water had seeped into the original concrete slab via cracking. He estimated the seepage had been occurring for about five-to-six weeks. That period coincides with the tenants’ problems. He also found a downpipe was leaking. He fixed that straight away.

The main problem was rising damp due to the original concrete slab cracking. Mr Harris repaired the issue, and it appears likely that the repair was successful. Other than the downpipe (which does not appear to have been instrumental in the damp) the premises possessed efficient water drainage systems and did not require a ground moisture barrier because it was exempted from that requirement due to the unit having a concrete slab construction. 1 I have also considered reg 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. However, the HHS and s 45(1)(b) are more directly applicable. Reg 15 is inapt for these circumstances.

The tenants have not proved that the landlords breached this standard.

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

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: 2 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: 3 “...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. 4 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 5 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

In this case, the defect was “latent and unobservable”. The tenants themselves did not know what was causing the excess dampness that in turn caused their belongings to go mouldy. It was the landlords’ builder who astutely identified the likely source of the additional moisture which likely contributed to a tipping point quantity of mould causing moisture in the air. 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 4 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 5 See n 2.

The landlords were unaware of the defect until their own builder identified it. They then responsibly repaired the defect. Conclusion

The landlords did all they should and could have done to address the issue by promptly locating the likely cause of the excess moisture and fixing it.

In fact, the landlords went above and beyond their legal obligations by also kindly granting the tenants a two-week rent holiday as recognition of the tenants’ loss.

The tenants have not proved that the landlords breached their duty to maintain the premises.

The claim under this head is also dismissed. Non-publication

The tenants seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.

The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.

It is in the tenants’ interests and not adverse to the landlords’ interests to suppress the tenants details. This claim, while unsuccessful, was properly brought for good reasons and presented efficiently and appropriately.

Publication of tenants’ names leads to likely difficulties in securing future tenancies because property managers are alert to avoiding potentially “problematic” tenants who bring claims in the Tribunal. It is in the public interest not to deter valid and properly presented applications as this one is.

Therefore, it is appropriate to order non-publication.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.

Mr [tenant’s surname] attended for both of the tenants.

Melissa Benge and Lisa Oquist attended the hearing for the landlords.

The tenants claim for mould damage to their elongings caused by a crack in the premises’ original concrete slab. Background

The tenancy began on 9 February 2024 and is continuing.

The premises is a 72m 2 converted garage/sleepout. The conversion was completed to high standard and in accordance with building and Council rule about 10 years ago.

The mould was particularly bad in the spare bedroom where the tenants kept their clothing and other belongings.

The tenants application is framed as the landlords breaching the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) in respect to moisture.

The issues the Tribunal must determine are: 1 a. Whether the landlords breached the HHS; or b. Whether the landlords failed to maintain the premises.

Did the landlords fail to comply with the HHS moisture standard?

The tenants have not proved that the landlords breached this standard.

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

The landlords were unaware of the defect until their own builder identified it. They then responsibly repaired the defect. Conclusion

The landlords did all they should and could have done to address the issue by promptly locating the likely cause of the excess moisture and fixing it.

In fact, the landlords went above and beyond their legal obligations by also kindly granting the tenants a two-week rent holiday as recognition of the tenants’ loss.

The tenants have not proved that the landlords breached their duty to maintain the premises.

The claim under this head is also dismissed. Non-publication

The tenants seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.

Therefore, it is appropriate to order non-publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157931 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157931 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords fail to comply with the HHS moisture standard?

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 fail to comply with the HHS moisture standard?

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions