What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291940 about?

The tribunal order states: Rempstone Property Management Limited must pay Madison Gray, Lily Burns,

How much money was awarded in case 5291940?

Compensation: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Abatement: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291940?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12235506-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291940 about?

The tribunal order states: Rempstone Property Management Limited must pay Madison Gray, Lily Burns,

How much money was awarded in case 5291940?

Compensation: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Abatement: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291940?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12235506-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

301 Waimairi Road, Ilam, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5291940 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291940 — net $3,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent abatement	$1,200.00	Rent abatement
Compensation – general	$1,800.00	Compensation – general
Compensation - shoes	$200.00	Compensation - shoes
Net award	$3,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,200.00

Rempstone Property Management Limited must pay Madison Gray, Lily Burns, Dylan Dodd and Taylor Nassau $3,200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord must carry out the following work. The work in a. below must be completed by 22 August 2025. The work in b. below must be completed by 5 September 2025. a. Strip the wallpaper from the bedroom occupied by Maddison Gray, remove all mould from the room, remove and replace any materials that have been damaged by water ingress and either wallpaper or paint the room and clean and if necessary, replace the carpet. b. Employ a suitably qualified licenced building practitioner to survey the roof of the premises, prepare a report on the condition of the roof and carry out all work recommended by the builder to ensure that the roof and associated building elements (such as flashings) are sufficient to make the roof watertight.

For every week after 22 August that work in 2a above has not been completed, the landlord must pay the tenants $100.

If the landlord fails to comply with Order 2a above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $1,000.

All sums that the landlord is required to pay under this order may be set off by the tenants against the rent payable to the extent that the landlord has not paid them.

Reasons

All four tenants attended the hearing. Ms Sun attended representing the property manager. The tenancy agreement states that the property manager is acting on behalf of the landlord, but the landlord is not named. Following law of agency principles, the property manager is correctly named as the landlord/respondent. I shall refer to them in this order as the landlord and to the owner of the premises as the owner.

The tenants claim compensation and abatement of rent for the landlord’s failure to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with relevant building legislation and a work order to remedy the alleged property defects. Background

The premises is a 1960’s-built house with four bedrooms. It appears from the photographs provided to be in largely original condition.

The owner bought the premises in March 2022 and the landlord has managed the premises since May 2023. This tenancy is the second tenancy since the owner bought the premises.

This tenancy began on 3 February 2025, and it is for a fixed term until 2 February 2026.

When the tenants viewed the premises, it was missing most of its guttering. It seems that the copper guttering was stolen shortly before the viewing. It was replaced on 23 March.

After the tenants moved in, they were immediately aware of mould in the premises. They promptly notified the landlord. It is a feature of this case that the tenants have kept the landlord well informed of their living conditions in the premises.

The main problem the tenants have experienced has been with dampness and mould that has affected three bedrooms in a line along the eastern side of the premises. For one of the tenants, Maddison Gray, the situation became intolerable, and she moved her bedroom to the lounge where she remains. Mould has appeared elsewhere in the premises.

Towards the end of May there was leaking into one of the bedrooms and water was running down the bedroom walls. The landlord brought in a builder to investigate the situation and they found that the roof was leaking.

The agent offered the tenants alternative accommodation, but they were in the middle of exams, and it was not feasible for them to move.

Builders worked on the roof of the premises on 18 June and sealed cracks, laid waterproof building paper and replaced several tiles above one of the bedrooms. A message from the builder to the landlord dated 25 June states, “Despite these repairs there is still a high risk of rainwater damage.” In response to a request from the agent for further explanation the builder said that the truss frames are expanding due to existing leaks and the entire roof is uneven. Law

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), 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 Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires dwellings to be free from damp.

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 (s78(1)(e) of the Act).

A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. Discussion and Decision

I accept the evidence given by the tenants. They have acted very reasonably and properly throughout this situation and their oral evidence is well supported by the written evidence and photographs. Their evidence was not seriously challenged by the agent.

Damp and mould have been a problem in the premises from the start of the tenancy. The agent has suggested that the tenants may have contributed to this situation by not properly ventilating the premises. I do not accept that. I find that the tenants have taken reasonable care to keep the premises ventilated. They said that they kept the windows of their bedrooms open slightly for most of the day and aired the rest of the premises appropriately. They have also used dehumidifiers in the premises every day and attempted to remove the mould as it has appeared.

The problem of damp and mould has likely been caused or contributed to by leaking through the roof. That reached the point that water was running down walls in the premises. The builder’s comments indicate that water has been getting into the roof space and creating dampness there.

There may be other defects contributing to the dampness. I note that the agent produced a healthy homes report that followed an inspection of the premises on 2022, It states that there is insulation and a ground vapour barrier under the floor of the premises but there are no photographs showing it. Access to the sub-floor space is through a manhole but the tenants have not looked down there. What makes me somewhat concerned about the situation under the floor is that the author of the report confirmed that the insulation in the roof space was compliant, but the photographs show only part of the space and gaps in the insulation can be seen in the photographs. I make no finding on this issue because the evidence is unclear.

I accept that the situation in one bedroom became so bad that the tenant in that room had to move out and into the lounge. That was unsatisfactory for her and for the other tenants who lost the use of the lounge.

The other two tenants affected by the dampness in their bedrooms have had an unpleasant experience. I also accept that all three tenants have suffered more winter illnesses than usual and that is probably a result of the damp and cold conditions they have been living in.

The owner came to the premises and washed down the bedroom walls removing most of the mould. In doing so in one of the bedrooms he has removed some wallpaper and revealed mould staining to the linings. The tenant who vacated that room is not willing to return to using it as her bedroom until all the mould have been removed and I find that to be reasonable.

It is likely that the roof was damaged when the guttering was removed shortly before the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord should have thoroughly checked the condition of the roof after that event and made good any damage. I note that any damage to roof from that event was likely to be covered by the landlord’s insurance.

I any case, the problem of mould and damp was brought to the landlord’s notice very early on in the tenancy and that should have been investigated then, including getting the roof checked.

The tenants also complained that the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working properly. They said that they told that by a contractor who came to the property. The evidence was not enough to prove this but the landlord should get the fan professionally checks and act on any advice.

I find that the landlord did not provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and did not provide and keep the premises free of damp. Remedy

One of the tenants has moved her bedroom to the lounge due to the condition of her bedroom and that is continuing. That has been the situation for 10 weeks and that is likely to continue for another two weeks until the bedroom has been made ready for occupation.

This has affected all the tenants and I find that they are entitled to a rent rebate for the loss of their lounge. I assess this at the rate of $100 per week and so I have awarded $1,200.

The tenants are further entitled to compensation for the loss of amenity, discomfort, upset and inconvenience from the damp and colder condition of the premises. I assess that at $1,800.

I have also awarded $200 for the loss of shoes belonging to Taylor Nassau due to damage from the mould.

I find that the landlord must carry out work to the bedroom so that it is free of mould and made good for occupation again as a bedroom.

The landlord must also get the roof checked and carry out all work needed to ensure that it is watertight.

I was not satisfied that the landlord should pay for the curtains bought by the tenants. They are entitled to take the curtains with them when they leave.

I was also not satisfied that there should be an award for additional power costs. The power bills were not excessive.

The tenants have been largely successful and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291940 — net $3,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent abatement	$1,200.00	Rent abatement
Compensation – general	$1,800.00	Compensation – general
Compensation - shoes	$200.00	Compensation - shoes
Net award	$3,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,200.00