What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4529229?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4529229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4529229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4529229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9353554-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4529229?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4529229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4529229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4529229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9353554-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 87 Konini Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4529229 — Mould & damp

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Sunil Punwani must pay Martha Jillian Lundmark $500.00 immediately, as per below for breaching the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 th August 2023.
The tenant sought compensation for: a. Shower, oven and laundry not working for 3 weeks; b. Two rooms not being able to be used due to mould; c. Inconvenience due to construction work during the tenancy; and d. Moving expenses.
The landlord made a cross-application seeking compensation for: a. Loss of rent due to the tenant breaking the fixed-term tenancy; b. Letting fees for subsequent tenants; and c. 25% for installing the HRV system. 4529229, 45954012 Background and timeline
The tenancy was originally for a fixed-term from 8 th November 2022 to 8 th November 2023.
The tenant had viewed this premises twice before deciding to move in. The previous tenant was still living there during the viewings.
When the tenant moved in, the tenant found that the premises was not provided in a reasonably clean state. The tenant notified the landlord that there was mould in the kitchen and that she was cleaning the premises herself.
The tenant said that she had to clean for 9 full days. The tenant did not request for the landlord to engage in a cleaner to have the premises cleaned again.
The tenant also found that one of the shower door panels was missing completely. That meant that the tenant would be spraying water due to the missing panel. The tenant had to use a shower at the nearby public swimming pools for 3 weeks before the shower door was replaced entirely.
The tenant said that the oven was not working at all. The tenant did acknowledge that there was a countertop portable oven provided also.
The tenant also was unable to use the washing machine due to not being able to fully open the laundry taps.
On 17 th November 2022, the tenant sent a 14-day notice to the landlord to remedy a number of issues.
On the following day, the landlord visited the premises and went through the issues raised by the tenant. A voice recording of the conversations held that day between the parties was played at the hearing.
On 19 th November 2022, the landlord’s mould specialist went to attend to the mould issue raised.
On 23 rd November 2022, various contractors attended to resolve other issues raised by the tenant. These included a builder, plumber and a shower door installer. A new oven was installed on that day as well as the laundry taps being serviced. The shower door was installed on 26 th November 2022.
On 28 th November 2022, a Healthy Homes Inspection was conducted and found that the premises was compliant.
On 30 th November 2022, the landlord informed the tenant that the fireplace could not be used and allowed the tenant to be released from the tenancy with 28 days’ notice. On the same day, new carpet was installed.
On 6 th December 2022, the tenant moved into a tent in the garden and started sleeping in the tent. 4529229, 45954013
On 31 st December 2022, the tenant gave the landlord 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
On 29 th January 2023, the tenancy ended. Tenant’s claims
I consider the tenant’s claims first. Shower, oven and laundry
Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide 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 RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I find that the tenant has proven that the shower and the oven were not provided in a reasonable state of repair.
I also find that the premises was not provided in a reasonably clean state.
However, I do not find that the tenant has proven that the laundry taps themselves were faulty. There could have been an issue with the installation of the washing machine as the tap issue was fixed by the taps being serviced only.
In relation to the shower, oven and the lack of cleanliness, I do not find that the landlord had breached his obligations intentionally.
The landlord explained that there was a short turnaround between the previous tenant and this tenant and that the landlord did not know of those issues as they had never been raised previously.
I accept that the missing shower panel would not have been obvious if the shower door was fully open, collapsing the three sliding panels into one.
I do not order any exemplary damages against the landlord. However, I find that the landlord needs to compensate the tenant for the loss of use of the shower and the main oven. The landlord needs to also compensate the tenant for her time spent cleaning.
In calculating the amount, I acknowledge the alternative oven that was available and that the fact that the tenant never requested for the landlord to clean the premises again. 4529229, 45954014
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 as compensation for breaching landlord’s obligations. Mouldy rooms
The tenant claimed that she could not use two bedrooms due to mould or mouldy smell.
The tenant said that she just could not get the mouldy smell out completely.
To prove the mould, the tenant provided a photo of a hole behind a wall where mould could be seen.
The landlord said that there was an old electrical box there previously. It had been sealed up by some type of covering. When the tenant raised the mould issue, the landlord sprayed mould-cleaning chemicals in the hole and had the hole properly plastered.
The landlord said that he could not smell any mould when he visited the premises. In the voice recording, the tenant acknowledged that the smell was less noticeable when the windows were open.
Individuals often differ in their smell tolerance levels.
Although the tenant had a medical certificate recommending her to not stay in mouldy rooms, it does not prove that the mouldy smell was to an unreasonable level.
From the available evidence, I do not find that the premises suffered from unreasonable mould levels.
I do not grant any amount for the mouldy rooms or the tenant living in a tent out in the garden. I cannot discount the fact that it may have been a decision made to utilise the outdoor space by the tenant during summer. Compensation for construction work
I find that any inconvenience from construction work during the tenancy was a natural consequence of having the issues resolved. I have incorporated this in the amount ordered above.
I do not grant any separate compensation for this claim. Moving expenses
The tenant sought for the landlord to pay the tenant $2,000.00 for moving expenses.
The tenant said that her original intention was to stay at the premises long term. 4529229, 45954015
However, the tenant was the one who terminated the tenancy not the landlord.
There was no evidence that the premises was uninhabitable or that it was an unlawful dwelling.
The tenant had viewed the premises twice prior to becoming a tenant.
The landlord had responded perfectly to the tenant’s 14-day notice to remedy issues.
The landlord even allowed the tenant to be released from the fixed-term tenancy earlier without any conditions.
I see no grounds for this claim. This claim is dismissed. Landlord’s cross-application
I now consider the landlord’s cross-application.
Any loss of rent due to the tenant breaking the fixed-term tenancy should have been discussed with the tenant before agreeing to release the tenant from the tenancy.
This was not a unilateral termination by the tenant. The landlord had agreed to release the tenant earlier.
As such, the landlord cannot then claim loss of rent or the letting fee costs from the tenant.
In relation to installing the HRV system, although it was installed to appease the tenant’s complaints of the mouldy smell, it was done by the landlord voluntarily. It was an investment made by the landlord and no one else. There is no basis for this claim.
The landlord’s cross-application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4529229 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 87 Konini Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4529229 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 87 Konini Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

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