What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4470480?

The tribunal order states: Manfei Su must pay Yue Qiu and Donglin Wei $1,350.00 immediately, being the

How much money was awarded in case 4470480?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4470480?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4470480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9520710-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4470480?

The tribunal order states: Manfei Su must pay Yue Qiu and Donglin Wei $1,350.00 immediately, being the

How much money was awarded in case 4470480?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4470480?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4470480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9520710-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Namsan Close, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4470480 — Mould & damp

Order

Manfei Su must pay Yue Qiu and Donglin Wei $1,350.00 immediately, being the bond for the premises.
The remaining applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term, which was ended early prior to the Tribunal becoming involved.
The tenants have sought reimbursement of the bond paid, exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond, exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises, exemplary damages for failure to comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS) and exemplary damages for harassment.
The landlord denies the allegations. Initially that a challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. This was determined, and jurisdiction confirmed, following a hearing and order on 28 February 2023. Bond
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 is refunded in full to the tenant. Failure to maintain
Yue Qiu and Donglin Wei claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant alleges that the landlord failed to maintain the shower slider and ensure that the kitchen tap was working.
The landlord claims that neither issue was raised with them, despite regular contact.
There was no 14-day notice, and the tenants could not point me to any corroborating evidence confirming the landlords were put on notice that maintenance was required.
In relation to the mould, the tenants say that the house is not compliant with the HHS and it damp and mouldy as a result. The landlord’s position is that the house is dry and healthy, but there was extra moisture due to the tenants drying washing in the house and failing to ventilate the premises.
As set out below, the house has been assessed as compliant with the HHS and not issues in relation to dampness or ventilation have been identified. There is insufficient evidence to show that there was a fault in the premises that the landlord had to respond to.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord has committed an unlawful act or breached their obligations.
The tenants’ application is dismissed. Harassment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant allege the following as breaching quiet enjoyment in circumstances that amount to harassment - a. The landlord child ran around upstairs and way noisy. b. The landlord rang the tenant’s phone four times in the early hours of 22 December 2022. c. The landlord visited the tenant’s workplace on 22 December 2022.
In relation to the noise made by the child, I do not accept that this can be characterised as a pattern of behaviour by one person to another. This was simply a child being a child, and while irritating over time cannot be described as intending to trouble, worry or distress, or to wear out, tire or exhaust.
In relation to the phone calls and the visit to the tenant’s workplace, these do give pause for thought. However, the landlord’s explanation is that the tenants were having a verbal argument at the time the calls were made, and he called to ask them to be quiet. That is consistent with the fact that no voicemail message was left, and is consistent with the fact that this only happened on one occasion. In relation to the visit, this was a single visit, and the tenant herself did not characterise it as threatening.
Accordingly, I consider that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the application is dismissed. Health Homes
The HHS covers a number of standards to which rental premises must comply, although the dates for compliance vary depending on circumstances.
Breaching the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In the present case, the tenants claim the premises does not meet the HHS for insulation, ventilation and moisture.
The tenants claim the premises is not insulated in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenants further claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), in relation to the HHS ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage standards.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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 requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, however for this tenancy the compliance date was 22 January 2023.
The tenancy ended before the compliance date was reached.
Further, I have received a HHS assessment report dated 10 January 2023 showing that the premises is fully complaint with the HHS.
Accordingly, the landlord has not breached his obligations in this respect and the application is dismissed. Failure to lodge bond
The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The landlord accepts that no bond was lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord argued that this was not a residential tenancy, which is why the bond wasn’t lodged.
I accept that, given there was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal initially.
While the Tribunal determined that this was a tenancy to which the Act applies, there was no direction that the bond be lodged.
Accordingly, I accept that this not an intentional breach of the Act.
The application for exemplary damages is declined. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The tenants sought suppression of their names. However, the tenants were not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenants having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. Filing Fee
As the tenants have not been wholly or substantively successful, I make not orders in relation to the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4470480 — Mould & damp at 12 Namsan Close, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4470480 — Mould & damp at 12 Namsan Close, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

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