What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4558052?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4558052?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4558052?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4558052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9240359-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4558052?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4558052?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4558052?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4558052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9240359-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 20, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4558052 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations in relation to repair and maintenance or Healthy Homes Standards and the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities and is required to provide the Tribunal with the evidence necessary to prove its claims. Repair & Maintenance

The applicant claimed that the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards in that the property was mouldy and unhealthy. The landlord is a registered social housing provider. The Healthy Homes Standards did not apply to this tenancy. I have considered the tenant’s claims in the context of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Rule 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 states that “every house shall be free from dampness”.

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.

Mr Kotua referred me to photographs of mould at the property. He said that it was a problem throughout his tenancy and made the property unhealthy to live in. He also provided a photograph showing carpet damage near a door sill in the dining room and some decay in the shower area.

A tenant has a statutory duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (section 40(1)(d) RTA). Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so. The landlord’s representative said it had no record of Mr Kotua raising concerns with the condition of the property during the tenancy, and Mr Kotua did not point me to any evidence of concerns being raised.

Some houses produce some mould during wet seasons. Such mould is often removed by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is provided, then it is considered the tenant’s problem. However, if a property has an inherent problem causing mould, the landlord is responsible for fixing the fault.

So, there can be two main possible causes for the mould – the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation and/or cleaning. The fact that some mould was in a house was not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair; and the opinion of unqualified persons was often not persuasive (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011).

There is insufficient evidence to reach a finding that the landlord has breached their legal obligations to repair and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair in respect of mould, decay or dampness. The photographs provided by Mr Kotua do not establish an inherent problem with the dwelling. The landlord’s photographs and evidence tend to support a conclusion that the mould had been caused by lack of ventilation and/or cleaning. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment

Mr Kotua claims the landlord failed to take appropriate steps in relation to anti- social behaviour by other tenants at this complex.

A landlord must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Mr Kotua’s evidence in this regard lacked detail. He said that other tenants at the complex behaved as they wished, without consequence. The landlord disputed that and said that tenants were issued with breach notices or terminated where appropriate.

Mr Kotua also referred to work carried out by the landlord’s contractors disturbing his sleep. Again, there was little detail in Mr Kotua’s evidence.

The landlord was not aware of Mr Kotua raising any concerns during his tenancy. There was insufficient evidence to reach a finding that the landlord has allowed or permitted any interference with Mr Kotua’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. The claim is dismissed.

As Mr Kotua was not successful with his claim, I have not granted his request for suppression of his details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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.

Mr Kotua claims the landlord failed to take appropriate steps in relation to anti- social behaviour by other tenants at this complex.

A landlord must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Mr Kotua also referred to work carried out by the landlord’s contractors disturbing his sleep. Again, there was little detail in Mr Kotua’s evidence.

As Mr Kotua was not successful with his claim, I have not granted his request for suppression of his details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4558052 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 20, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4558052 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 20, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions