What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4515398?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4515398?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4515398?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4515398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9330527-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4515398?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4515398?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4515398?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4515398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9330527-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

83 Harrow Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4515398 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, but the Tribunal declines to order suppression.
The application by the tenant for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

One tenant and the landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant sought exemplary damages for the state of the premises and the failure of the landlord to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 14/2/2022 to 31/12/2022 at $650.00 rent per week.
As part of the tenancy agreement the tenant signed an exemption clause which recorded that the landlord intended to demolish the premises within twelve months and was exempt from healthy homes compliance.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

The tenant submitted that the premises, and in particular, the carpets were not clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
Further the tenant suggested that the premises were not maintained, with leaking downpipes, draughts and a rotten window frame.
In support of the claim the tenant provided photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy and confirmed they had hired a rug doctor to clean the carpets.
While not disputing that the carpet needed cleaning the landlord provided invoices for cleaning, including carpet cleaning prior to the tenancy commencing. The landlord suggested that had she been aware of the carpet needing further cleaning this could have been arranged.
Further the landlord provided a property inspection report dated 11/2/2022, and invoices for work undertaken on the premises during the tenancy when advised of issues by the tenant. These included replacement of the hot water cylinder, repair of the washing machine, repair of a bedroom door and window sash and cleaning of blocked spouting.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching either 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.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The applicant, in this case the tenant, is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Apart from the carpets, the tenant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the premises were unclean and untidy at the beginning of the tenancy and not maintained during the tenancy when the landlord became aware of matters needing attention.
With regard to the carpets, I accept that the landlord had these cleaned before the commencement of the tenancy and would have done so again had the tenant asked her to do so.
I am persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that repairs were undertaken within a reasonable timeframe when requested.
The claim for exemplary damages for breach of section 45(1) fails.

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant submitted that the premises did not comply with healthy homes standards and despite claiming an exemption the property was advertised for rent for the 2023 year.
In support of the claim the tenant suggested that the DCC Resource Consent he received in July 2022 only included the demolition of the premises as a recommendation.
However, the tenant did not provide a copy of the document he relied on.
The tenant was unhappy with the size of the heat pump and the draughts in the premises.
On the other hand, the landlord confirmed that the premises were not currently rented out and the advertisement had been removed when advice was received from Tenancy Services that either a new demolition consent was needed or compliance with Healthy homes standards needed to be completed.
In support of the exemption the landlord provided a copy of the Resource consent from the DCC, maps of the properties included, the quote for demolition, and the archaeological authority from Heritage NZ for the demolition.
Further the landlord provided a certificate from Technobond confirming compliance with insulation standards but accepted that the heating and draught stopping standards did not comply.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) for heating, ventilation, insulation and drainage/moisture ingress standards.
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).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Clause 31 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 provides the landlord need not comply with the standards if before the commencement of the tenancy the landlord applied for consent to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises, with the work to begin within the grace period.
The grace period is twelve months beginning on the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
Despite being non-compliant for heating and ventilation I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
I am persuaded that the landlord had an exemption from compliance with the healthy homes standards because of the authority to demolish issued before the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant was made aware of the exemption and that the weekly rent was below market rate because of this.
I also accept the assurance of the landlord that the premises will not be re-let, despite the demolition having been delayed, because the costs of improving the heating would be prohibitive in the circumstances.
No filing fee is available to the tenant because they were unsuccessful.
Suppression is also not available to the tenant for the same reason.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, but the Tribunal declines to order suppression.
The application by the tenant for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

One tenant and the landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant sought exemplary damages for the state of the premises and the failure of the landlord to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 14/2/2022 to 31/12/2022 at $650.00 rent per week.
As part of the tenancy agreement the tenant signed an exemption clause which recorded that the landlord intended to demolish the premises within twelve months and was exempt from healthy homes compliance.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

The tenant submitted that the premises, and in particular, the carpets were not clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
Further the tenant suggested that the premises were not maintained, with leaking downpipes, draughts and a rotten window frame.
In support of the claim the tenant provided photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy and confirmed they had hired a rug doctor to clean the carpets.
While not disputing that the carpet needed cleaning the landlord provided invoices for cleaning, including carpet cleaning prior to the tenancy commencing. The landlord suggested that had she been aware of the carpet needing further cleaning this could have been arranged.
Further the landlord provided a property inspection report dated 11/2/2022, and invoices for work undertaken on the premises during the tenancy when advised of issues by the tenant. These included replacement of the hot water cylinder, repair of the washing machine, repair of a bedroom door and window sash and cleaning of blocked spouting.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching either 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.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The applicant, in this case the tenant, is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Apart from the carpets, the tenant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the premises were unclean and untidy at the beginning of the tenancy and not maintained during the tenancy when the landlord became aware of matters needing attention.
With regard to the carpets, I accept that the landlord had these cleaned before the commencement of the tenancy and would have done so again had the tenant asked her to do so.
I am persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that repairs were undertaken within a reasonable timeframe when requested.
The claim for exemplary damages for breach of section 45(1) fails.

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant submitted that the premises did not comply with healthy homes standards and despite claiming an exemption the property was advertised for rent for the 2023 year.
In support of the claim the tenant suggested that the DCC Resource Consent he received in July 2022 only included the demolition of the premises as a recommendation.
However, the tenant did not provide a copy of the document he relied on.
The tenant was unhappy with the size of the heat pump and the draughts in the premises.
On the other hand, the landlord confirmed that the premises were not currently rented out and the advertisement had been removed when advice was received from Tenancy Services that either a new demolition consent was needed or compliance with Healthy homes standards needed to be completed.
In support of the exemption the landlord provided a copy of the Resource consent from the DCC, maps of the properties included, the quote for demolition, and the archaeological authority from Heritage NZ for the demolition.
Further the landlord provided a certificate from Technobond confirming compliance with insulation standards but accepted that the heating and draught stopping standards did not comply.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) for heating, ventilation, insulation and drainage/moisture ingress standards.
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).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Clause 31 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 provides the landlord need not comply with the standards if before the commencement of the tenancy the landlord applied for consent to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises, with the work to begin within the grace period.
The grace period is twelve months beginning on the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
Despite being non-compliant for heating and ventilation I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
I am persuaded that the landlord had an exemption from compliance with the healthy homes standards because of the authority to demolish issued before the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant was made aware of the exemption and that the weekly rent was below market rate because of this.
I also accept the assurance of the landlord that the premises will not be re-let, despite the demolition having been delayed, because the costs of improving the heating would be prohibitive in the circumstances.
No filing fee is available to the tenant because they were unsuccessful.
Suppression is also not available to the tenant for the same reason.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4515398 — Mould & damp at 83 Harrow Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

Tenancy Tribunal case 4515398 — Mould & damp at 83 Harrow Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions