What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5417228 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 5417228?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417228?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13753337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5417228 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 5417228?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417228?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13753337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6A, 468 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5417228 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant. Tenant’s further claims
The tenant’s application included claims for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and comply with the landlord’s obligations under the Healthy Home Regulations in relation to water ingress. The tenant’s claim arose when the premises were flooded by water from the unit above.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. Background
The landlord explained that the washing machine pipe in the unit above the premises blocked and caused flooding into the ceiling of the premises. The landlord advised that the unit above was not owned by the landlord.
The tenant’s photographic and video evidence showed that the bathroom and both bedrooms were flooded and that some of her chattels were wet. She claimed that shoes, a rug, a television, blankets and bedding, laptops, a sofa, a makeup table, a birthday cake and decorations were damaged beyond repair. She claimed that the landlord was responsible for this damage and should compensate her. Discussion and consideration
Having considered the evidence submitted by the tenant and the evidence given verbally at the hearing, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached any of their obligations to the tenant so that they are liable to the tenant for either compensation or exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant did not know what caused the flooding event and the tenant has not provided any evidence that would place doubt on the landlord’s reasonable explanation or persuade the Tribunal that the flooding was due to some action or inaction of the landlord’s. The tenant has not provided any evidence that the landlord breached their obligation to maintain the premises. b. Similarly, there is no evidence that the landlord was in breach of Subpart 6 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 in relation to moisture ingress and drainage standards. c. The tenant was unfortunately subject to a flood from the unit above. The landlord is under no obligation to the tenant for the actions of a third party. If there is any claim for the damage the tenant claims to have suffered, it is against the occupant of the unit above from where the flood came. It is for a tenant to insure their own chattels in case of flooding or fire. There is no obligation on the landlord to insure the tenant’s chattels. It is doubtful that a landlord has an insurable interest in a tenant’s chattels. The landlord confirmed that their insurance policy did not include any provision for such cover. d. The tenant has not provided any evidence in relation to the items she is claiming compensation for so that the Tribunal could assess whether the tenant had tried to salvage or repair her goods, whether they were damaged beyond repair, or evidence of their cost or replacement cost. e. The tenant claimed for compensation for her power costs incurred while the landlord’s contractor’s machinery was drying out the premises. She provided no evidence in support of her claim such as a power bill for the relevant period and bills for earlier periods. She agreed that the landlord had paid her a sum in compensation. Whether the sum was $120.00 or $150.00, amounts in that range are adequate compensation based on similar claims for which the Tribunal sees documented evidence.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages and compensation are dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant. Tenant’s further claims
The tenant’s application included claims for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and comply with the landlord’s obligations under the Healthy Home Regulations in relation to water ingress. The tenant’s claim arose when the premises were flooded by water from the unit above.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. Background
The landlord explained that the washing machine pipe in the unit above the premises blocked and caused flooding into the ceiling of the premises. The landlord advised that the unit above was not owned by the landlord.
The tenant’s photographic and video evidence showed that the bathroom and both bedrooms were flooded and that some of her chattels were wet. She claimed that shoes, a rug, a television, blankets and bedding, laptops, a sofa, a makeup table, a birthday cake and decorations were damaged beyond repair. She claimed that the landlord was responsible for this damage and should compensate her. Discussion and consideration
Having considered the evidence submitted by the tenant and the evidence given verbally at the hearing, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached any of their obligations to the tenant so that they are liable to the tenant for either compensation or exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant did not know what caused the flooding event and the tenant has not provided any evidence that would place doubt on the landlord’s reasonable explanation or persuade the Tribunal that the flooding was due to some action or inaction of the landlord’s. The tenant has not provided any evidence that the landlord breached their obligation to maintain the premises. b. Similarly, there is no evidence that the landlord was in breach of Subpart 6 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 in relation to moisture ingress and drainage standards. c. The tenant was unfortunately subject to a flood from the unit above. The landlord is under no obligation to the tenant for the actions of a third party. If there is any claim for the damage the tenant claims to have suffered, it is against the occupant of the unit above from where the flood came. It is for a tenant to insure their own chattels in case of flooding or fire. There is no obligation on the landlord to insure the tenant’s chattels. It is doubtful that a landlord has an insurable interest in a tenant’s chattels. The landlord confirmed that their insurance policy did not include any provision for such cover. d. The tenant has not provided any evidence in relation to the items she is claiming compensation for so that the Tribunal could assess whether the tenant had tried to salvage or repair her goods, whether they were damaged beyond repair, or evidence of their cost or replacement cost. e. The tenant claimed for compensation for her power costs incurred while the landlord’s contractor’s machinery was drying out the premises. She provided no evidence in support of her claim such as a power bill for the relevant period and bills for earlier periods. She agreed that the landlord had paid her a sum in compensation. Whether the sum was $120.00 or $150.00, amounts in that range are adequate compensation based on similar claims for which the Tribunal sees documented evidence.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages and compensation are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417228 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 6A, 468 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417228 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 6A, 468 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions