What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5419148?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5419148?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419148?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13578759-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5419148?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5419148?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419148?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13578759-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 10 Finsbury Street, Islington, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5419148 — Mould

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant seeks a work order requiring the landlord to construct a porch for the front door of the premises.

The landlord opposes the application. Background

This tenancy began in 2020.

The premises are a single-story unit at the front of six conjoined units that run back from the road. They were built in 2019.

The front of the unit faces south-west, and the main door is at the front.

There is a ranch slider door on the north-west side of the premises that opens onto a paved area where there is a shed. The door cannot be locked from the outside.

A path runs from a gate at the footpath to the front door. Another path runs from the paved area at the side to the footpath but there is no gate there and there is no path between the two paths

Consequently, it is not practicable to use the ranch slider door to enter and leave the premises.

There is no porch or any other kind of covering or protection from the weather at the front door. It is fully exposed to the elements and in inclement weather from the south or south-west, rain and other precipitation blows into the premises when the front door is opened.

The tenant said this is detrimental for her and visitors to the premises because it makes the floor of entrance way slippery and damp and wets the carpet off the entrance way.

The landlords have offered to replace the vinyl covering at the entrance way with non-slip vinyl. The tenant has not taken up that offer and she says that it would not overcome the problem of incoming rain wetting the carpet and anything else near the door.

The landlords say that the premises comply with all legal requirements and that a porch or other covering would be an improvement, and it is not something that they are required to provide.

The tenant has an application in with the Ministry of Social Development for a move to other, more suitable accommodation but it is unclear how long that will take or whether it will be successful.

The tenant says that due to her mobility issues and her declining health generally, she needs the porch to protect her health and safety and the safety of others who visit the premises. Adjournment

The tenant applied for an adjournment because the landlords have not provided information that she sought from them, namely a report from a builder.

The tenant said that a builder instructed by the landlord attended the premises to look at the door issue and he told her that it was a design fault and a shelter was required. The landlords said that they have no record of that or any such report.

If there is such a report, it is not needed to enable me to determine this application. That is because there is evidence of the situation that the tenant complains of, and the key issue is whether the law requires the landlord to do something about it. Therefore, there is no need for an adjournment. Discussion

The Tribunal has the power under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) to order a party to do anything required to remedy a breach of the tenancy agreement or of the Act. Self-evidently, before the Tribunal can make an order requiring a party to carry out work (a work order), that party must first be in breach of the Act or the agreement.

The tenant relies on s45(1)(b) of the Act which says that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

That provision does not assist the tenant in this case. The landlords have not failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The premises are in a good state of repair. The porch that the tenant has asked the landlords to provide is not a repair. It is an addition to the premises.

The question is then, is the landlord required to provide this addition to the premises?

I have considered the legislative requirements for buildings as they relate to rental premises. The obvious ones are the Act (including the Healthy Homes Regulations), the Building Act 2004, and the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.

The Building Act requirements apply to building work whether that is a new build or alterations or repairs to a building. The premises were given a code of compliance certificate after they built and there is no evidence that they did not comply with that Act or that they do not continue to comply with it.

None of the Healthy Homes Standards requirements apply to require a porch to be built. The closest Standard would be the moisture ingress and drainage standard. But that standard does not require a porch to be added to prevent or mitigate rain from entering premises through a doorway when the door is open. If the door allowed rain to enter when it was closed, the standard would likely be engaged.

The Housing Improvement Regulations lay down certain minimum requirements for dwellings. But there is nothing in them that applies to the situation here. There is nothing wrong with the materials that the premises are made from in terms of ensuring weathertightness.

The Regulations require dwellings to be free from damp. But that was not intended to require dwellings to keep out rain when doors or windows are open to the elements. It mandates that dwellings don’t suffer from dampness during normal use which means closed-up in bad weather. Some rain entering briefly when a door is opened and closed does not constitute dampness for the purposes of the Regulations.

I am not aware of any other legislation or rule of law that can assist the tenant in this case. Result

There being no legal requirement for the landlord to add a porch to the front door of the premises or make any other addition or alteration to mitigate weather-related water ingress to the premises when the front door is open, the Tribunal has no power to make a work order against the landlords. The tenant’s application must therefore be dismissed.

Reasons