What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4639732?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4639732?

Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Of The Tenancy Due To Leaking Causin…: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639732?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9404320-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4639732?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4639732?

Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Of The Tenancy Due To Leaking Causin…: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639732?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9404320-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Redruth Avenue, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639732 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639732. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the tenancy due to leaking causing mould and the Tribunal filing		$500.00	of the tenancy due to leaking causing mould and the Tribunal filing
fee		$20.44	fee

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlords must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 3 October 2023: a. Arrange for the removal of mould from the ceiling in the kitchen and any other mould affected areas in the kitchen and treat those areas with a mould treatment.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlords must pay the tenants $250.00 immediately after 3 October 2023.
Amy Horn and Elizabeth Horn must pay Jasmine Lee Thomson and Joshua Esslemont $520.44 immediately being compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking causing mould ($500.00) and the Tribunal filing fee ($20.44).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for a work order to have the roof above the kitchen ceiling repaired and for compensation due to the ceiling leaking on occasion during rain events. That in turn has resulted in an area of mould on the ceiling and some other damage to the paintwork.
The affected area is small.
The repair was only recently completed.
The tenants do not consider that the repair is sufficient, and they doubt the expertise of the building contractor who has done the work. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: •Should the Tribunal make a work order? If so, what should the order encompass? •Have the tenants established a claim for compensation against the landlords?
Should the Tribunal make a work order? If so, what should the order encompass?
Under section 45(1)(a)-(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds that a landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order.
The Tribunal cannot make an order for the leak to be repaired because the landlords provided evidence that the work has been done already.
While the tenants doubt that the work is sufficient, that is speculation at this stage. Until there is another significant rain event, the adequacy of the repair cannot be known.
The Tribunal cannot make an order based on an assumption.
On the available evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlords have completed the work.
However, there is one aspect that requires addressing – the removal of mould from the affected area of ceiling and any other mould affected areas in the kitchen and mould treatment.
I have made an order for the landlords to do that work within the next 3 weeks.
How the landlords do that work is up to them. One possibility is for the tenants to do the work and receive reimbursement from the landlords.
The parties have previously reached an agreement for the tenants to do other repair work, and that appears to have been an appropriate resolution.
Only if the landlords take no action within the set time frame will the consequential money order take effect. Have the tenants established a claim for compensation against the landlords?
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The tenants’ compensation claim is for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking from the roof through the kitchen ceiling and the presence of mould in a small area of the ceiling.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
I accept from the evidence the landlords presented that they made all reasonable efforts to have the roof assessed and repaired in order to address the leak through the ceiling.
For various reasons including contractor unavailability (and unwillingness to accept a small job) the work was delayed and was only recently completed.
The tenants first mentioned the leak through the ceiling in June 2021. The landlord took some actions, but the leak was not fixed.
On 2 July 2023 the tenants issued a 14-day notice for the repair work. The work has since been done; it was completed 12 days ago.
Although the tenants raised electrical issues the evidence does not establish that the leaking and the electrical issues are connected.
The tenants have sought a rent rebate of various amounts over time.
Rent can only abate when the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged (in whole or in part) so as to become uninhabitable. That is not the case here.
The amounts sought as compensation by the tenants (expressed as a rent reduction) are unrealistic. They seek compensation of $4,950.00.
The landlords described themselves as ‘socially conscious’ landlords. They said they did not raise the rent for almost 5 years and only recently raised the rent by an amount that was 85% of the average rent for the area. During the covid period, they reduced the rent by 20%.
Combined, the landlords had calculated that the tenants had saved about $16,000.00 over time due to the low rent they had been charged.
The landlords suggested that the recent rent increase was the catalyst for the tenants’ Tribunal application against them.
Despite the landlords’ views, the tenants have suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
The effect of the intermittent leaking would have been annoying, and it lasted for a long time.
Compensation is not punitive. It is awarded to recognise a loss – in this case a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, and inconvenience.
Having considered the evidence of both parties, and their submissions, I award the tenants compensation of $500.00.
As the application is successful, the landlords must also pay the tenants’ Tribunal filing fee. Result
The landlords must complete the work ordered within the timeframe set. Compliance will include an arrangement made between the parties for the tenants to do the work and receive reimbursement.
As required the Tribunal has made a consequential money order for noncompliance.
The landlords will pay the tenants $520.44, comprising compensation of $500.00 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44. Comment
If, for some reason, the roof repair has not resolved the leak, the parties are encouraged to attend mediation in the first instance should they have a further dispute. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639732. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the tenancy due to leaking causing mould and the Tribunal filing		$500.00	of the tenancy due to leaking causing mould and the Tribunal filing
fee		$20.44	fee

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlords must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 3 October 2023: a. Arrange for the removal of mould from the ceiling in the kitchen and any other mould affected areas in the kitchen and treat those areas with a mould treatment.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlords must pay the tenants $250.00 immediately after 3 October 2023.
Amy Horn and Elizabeth Horn must pay Jasmine Lee Thomson and Joshua Esslemont $520.44 immediately being compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking causing mould ($500.00) and the Tribunal filing fee ($20.44).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for a work order to have the roof above the kitchen ceiling repaired and for compensation due to the ceiling leaking on occasion during rain events. That in turn has resulted in an area of mould on the ceiling and some other damage to the paintwork.
The affected area is small.
The repair was only recently completed.
The tenants do not consider that the repair is sufficient, and they doubt the expertise of the building contractor who has done the work. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: •Should the Tribunal make a work order? If so, what should the order encompass? •Have the tenants established a claim for compensation against the landlords?
Should the Tribunal make a work order? If so, what should the order encompass?
Under section 45(1)(a)-(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds that a landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order.
The Tribunal cannot make an order for the leak to be repaired because the landlords provided evidence that the work has been done already.
While the tenants doubt that the work is sufficient, that is speculation at this stage. Until there is another significant rain event, the adequacy of the repair cannot be known.
The Tribunal cannot make an order based on an assumption.
On the available evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlords have completed the work.
However, there is one aspect that requires addressing – the removal of mould from the affected area of ceiling and any other mould affected areas in the kitchen and mould treatment.
I have made an order for the landlords to do that work within the next 3 weeks.
How the landlords do that work is up to them. One possibility is for the tenants to do the work and receive reimbursement from the landlords.
The parties have previously reached an agreement for the tenants to do other repair work, and that appears to have been an appropriate resolution.
Only if the landlords take no action within the set time frame will the consequential money order take effect. Have the tenants established a claim for compensation against the landlords?
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The tenants’ compensation claim is for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking from the roof through the kitchen ceiling and the presence of mould in a small area of the ceiling.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
I accept from the evidence the landlords presented that they made all reasonable efforts to have the roof assessed and repaired in order to address the leak through the ceiling.
For various reasons including contractor unavailability (and unwillingness to accept a small job) the work was delayed and was only recently completed.
The tenants first mentioned the leak through the ceiling in June 2021. The landlord took some actions, but the leak was not fixed.
On 2 July 2023 the tenants issued a 14-day notice for the repair work. The work has since been done; it was completed 12 days ago.
Although the tenants raised electrical issues the evidence does not establish that the leaking and the electrical issues are connected.
The tenants have sought a rent rebate of various amounts over time.
Rent can only abate when the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged (in whole or in part) so as to become uninhabitable. That is not the case here.
The amounts sought as compensation by the tenants (expressed as a rent reduction) are unrealistic. They seek compensation of $4,950.00.
The landlords described themselves as ‘socially conscious’ landlords. They said they did not raise the rent for almost 5 years and only recently raised the rent by an amount that was 85% of the average rent for the area. During the covid period, they reduced the rent by 20%.
Combined, the landlords had calculated that the tenants had saved about $16,000.00 over time due to the low rent they had been charged.
The landlords suggested that the recent rent increase was the catalyst for the tenants’ Tribunal application against them.
Despite the landlords’ views, the tenants have suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
The effect of the intermittent leaking would have been annoying, and it lasted for a long time.
Compensation is not punitive. It is awarded to recognise a loss – in this case a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, and inconvenience.
Having considered the evidence of both parties, and their submissions, I award the tenants compensation of $500.00.
As the application is successful, the landlords must also pay the tenants’ Tribunal filing fee. Result
The landlords must complete the work ordered within the timeframe set. Compliance will include an arrangement made between the parties for the tenants to do the work and receive reimbursement.
As required the Tribunal has made a consequential money order for noncompliance.
The landlords will pay the tenants $520.44, comprising compensation of $500.00 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44. Comment
If, for some reason, the roof repair has not resolved the leak, the parties are encouraged to attend mediation in the first instance should they have a further dispute. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639732 — Mould & damp at 36 Redruth Avenue, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639732 — Mould & damp at 36 Redruth Avenue, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

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