What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317908 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5317908?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12416436-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317908 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5317908?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12416436-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Hyde Street, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317908 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants filed an application because they have been concerned about excess water around and under the house, which happens after heavy rain, and the associated problems they have had keeping the house warm in winter. They have claimed compensation. The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning walls after the end of the tenancy. Each party is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The questions I have to decide include: • Have the tenants proved there a problem with the drainage? • Should the tenants have cleaned the walls? • Should I allow suppression?

Have the tenants proved there was a problem with the drainage?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. They have also claimed that the landlord failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard. This 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 also requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

The tenants made submissions and provided me with photos. The photos show about 100mls of water around the outside of the house and I can see the water is under the house as well. They said there was an ongoing problem with water pooling and this made it very hard to heat the house. There was also an ongoing problem with mould. The landlord agreed there was a problem with flooding in 2021 and 2022 because of a burst pipe. This was investigated and repaired at the time. She said since the repair the tenants have never reported any flooding. She was also not aware of any problems with heating and mould.

This is the tenants’ claim to prove. They could not provide me with any supporting information, such as texts or messages, to show when they reported these concerns to the landlord. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted promptly in 2021 and 2022. I am not persuaded the tenants advised the landlord that the flooding and the mould were ongoing maintenance issues. This means the tenants’ claim is not proved and their application is dismissed.

Should the tenants have cleaned the walls?

There is a claim for the cost of cleaning sections of wall in the lounge and two of the bedrooms after the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the tenants should pay. The law states that tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

I was provided with good photos of the dark marks on the walls and the invoice from the cleaner. The landlord has proved the marks were accumulated dust which could be cleaned off. The tenants said they did not clean the marks because they thought they were mould, which they only discovered behind some of the larger furniture when they moved out.

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The tenants’ explanation they thought the marks were mould is credible. Taking everything into account I find that cleaning these walls was part of maintenance, which is a landlord’s responsibility. The claim against the tenants is dismissed.

Should I allow suppression?

The tenants have made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.

The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed. They have successfully defended the landlord’s claim and there is no public interest in their names because there has been no breach of the RTA.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Have the tenants proved there was a problem with the drainage?

Should the tenants have cleaned the walls?

Should I allow suppression?

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317908 — Mould & damp at 5 Hyde Street, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317908 — Mould & damp at 5 Hyde Street, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants proved there was a problem with the drainage?

Should the tenants have cleaned the walls?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants proved there was a problem with the drainage?

Should the tenants have cleaned the walls?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions