What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4625270?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4625270?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625270?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9581433-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4625270?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4625270?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625270?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9581433-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

573 Milford Clandeboye Road, Milford, RD 26, Temuka Tenancy Tribunal Case 4625270 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Ms Urquhart claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. She did not identify any amount of compensation claimed and did not claim exemplary damages.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

This was a service tenancy. It is unclear when the tenancy started, but it appears to have been in April or May 2019. The tenancy ended in June 2023. Ms Urquhart claimed that the premises were damp and mouldy throughout her time at the property. She said that the insulation was not adequate and that she was constantly sick. She provided limited evidence of the condition of the property and no evidence in relation to health issues.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 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.

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.

Ms Urquhart did not provide sufficient to establish that the landlord had breached its obligations. See King & Yushkova v Greene [2021] NZDC 23637. Conversely, the landlord provided evidence from an independent assessment company regarding insulation, confirming both ceiling and sub-floor insulation in good condition.

Ms Urquhart said that she had recorded the landlord dismissing her concerns about condensation and saying that it was because a bedroom was south facing. The recording played at the hearing did not support Ms Urquhart’s recollection of the discussion. It also revealed that the tenants were using a portable air conditioning unit which puts moisture into the air.

Ms Urquhart also claims that the landlord failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. 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 2024. Ms Urquhart did not establish that the standards applied to this tenancy, given its commencement date in 2019, and there was no evidence of any renewal during the tenancy period.

Ms Urquhart did not seek a specific amount of compensation or exemplary damages. She said that she wanted the landlord to fix the property so that it met healthy homes standards for another tenant. As I explained to her at the hearing, I can only make orders in relation to her tenancy. In any event, she did not establish that she would be entitled to compensation or exemplary damages.

The application is dismissed. As Ms Urquahrt was not successful, I have refused her request for suppression of her details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 application is dismissed. As Ms Urquahrt was not successful, I have refused her request for suppression of her details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625270 — Mould & damp at 573 Milford Clandeboye Road, Milford, RD 26, Temuka

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625270 — Mould & damp at 573 Milford Clandeboye Road, Milford, RD 26, Temuka

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