Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5249211 — Mould & damp at 17A Murray Street, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400
Decided 19 Jun 2025 · Published 19 Jun 2025 · Application 5249211
- Mould & damp
- State of repair
- Property damage
- Leaks
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Jackie Wunderink must pay [The tenant/s] $377.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- By consent, the landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 18 July 2025: a. Remove the shower linings and replace them and remove and replace the damaged tiles around and below the bath and behind the hand basin. b. Treat the mould damaged areas in the bathroom and if necessary, repair and/or replace the damaged areas. c. Remove the damaged section of the ceiling in the lounge and patch repair it and paint the repaired section.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenant has applied for work orders and for compensation for losses sustained due to the garage roof leaking. Background
- The tenancy started on 3 March 2022. The tenancy is a current tenancy although the tenant is trying to find another place to rent. When he does, he intends vacating.
- The premises comprise an old house and garage.
- There are maintenance issues that require work to be done. They include mouldy and deteriorating shower linings, areas of flooring under the carpet that are soft, a damaged area of the ceiling in the lounge due to leaking, and a leaking garage roof.
- Some of the tenant’s chattels in the garage were damaged when the roof leaked. The first leak occurred in March 2023, then again around New Year’s Day in 2025.
- The tenant claimed on his insurance policy for the damaged chattels. His insurer accepted the claim and paid him $1,000.00.
- The property is due to be developed once the tenant vacates the tenancy due to the age of the premises and their condition.
- I heard evidence from the parties and from the landlord’s witness, licensed building practitioner Mr Stewart. Issues
- The Tribunal must decide the following issues: •Should work orders be made? If so, what orders are reasonable? •Has the tenant established a claim for compensation for damage to his chattels? Relevant law
- Under section 45(1)(a)-(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age ad character of the premises.
- Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
- If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order.
- The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenant’s compensation claim is for actual losses – damaged chattels in the garage.
- In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion Should work orders be made? If so, what orders are reasonable?
- The landlord’s agent conceded that work was required to treat the damaged shower wall linings and the tiles around and below the bath and behind the basin.
- Mr Stewart said he has assessed the damaged areas, but not to a great extent. Following a discussion at the hearing the work required was identified.
- Mr Stewart also suggested a cost-effective repair to the lounge ceiling. A damaged roof tile had resulted in leaking. He said the roof was now dry and the repair could proceed.
- Because the landlord agreed to these repairs I have made a work order by consent, with no consequential money order for non-compliance. It is the Tribunal’s expectation that the work will be done promptly, but certainly by 18 July 2025, a timeframe discussed with Mr Stewart.
- I have not made work orders for the garage roof or for areas of flooring that feel soft. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
- These premises are old and will likely be demolished and redeveloped. It would be unreasonable for the Tribunal to make onerous work orders in that situation especially given the tenant’s intent to move as soon as he finds a house to rent.
- Mr Stewart said that he had assessed the flooring. Two areas near bedrooms posed no risk. One area in the tenant’s bedroom posed a slight risk but was covered by furniture. This issue is more an annoyance rather than a required repair.
- The tenant said the leaking in the garage occurred only occasionally and was dependent of the direction of the rain. Given the likely redevelopment of the property, it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to replace the garage roof. Has the tent established a claim for compensation for damage to his chattels?
- That the garage roof leaked and caused damage to the tenant’s chattels does not constitute a landlord breach. Events like that just happen. The tenant (wisely) was insured for damage to his goods and his insurer accepted his claim and paid him under the policy less the excess.
- If the tenant does not consider the insurance settlement sufficient that is a matter between him and his insurer; it does not mean that responsibility for the damage to his chattels passes to the landlord.
- However, given that the landlord became aware of the leak, but did not repair the roof, it was reasonable for the tenant to ensure that he suffered no further loss by putting his remaining chattels, previously stored in the garage, into storage.
- The garage was part of the tenancy (included in the initial inspection report in the tenancy agreement) so the tenant was entitled to expect he could use it without the on-going risk of leaking.
- Since 12 March 2025, the tenant has incurred expenses for storage of $25.00 per week to store the chattels he cannot store in the garage due to the risk of further water damage. It is reasonable that he be compensated for that, an amount of $350.00 up to today. As well, the landlord should continue to compensate him $25.00 per week until he vacates the tenancy since the roof will not be repaired (for the reasons noted). Result
- The landlord must undertake the work ordered (and agreed to) by 18 July 2025.
- The landlord must pay the tenant compensation of $350.00 for his storage costs to date and continue to pay him $25.00 per week for so long as he incurs storage costs until the tenancy ends.
- The landlord must also pay the tenant’s filing fee on the successful application. Name suppression
- The tenant applied for, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression as his application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as they are not the successful party – see section 95A RTA.