What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4654389?

The tribunal order states: The tenant application is withdrawn.

How much money was awarded in case 4654389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654389?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9847201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4654389?

The tribunal order states: The tenant application is withdrawn.

How much money was awarded in case 4654389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654389?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9847201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

101 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4654389 — Mould & damp

Order

The tenant application is withdrawn.
The landlord application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a Cantonese interpreter, who translated every word spoken at the hearing.
The tenant advised at the start of the hearing that she no longer wishes to pursue her claim as the bond was refunded to her. The tenant application has been withdrawn.
The landlord claimed that the tenant caused damage to the flooring of his property. Background:
This was a short, fixed term tenancy that commenced on 11 February 2023 and terminated on 5 August 2023.
The landlord advised that the tenant moved into the property on the same day that the previous tenant had moved out. The landlord did an inspection of the property and said at the hearing that he thought everything looked fine.
The tenant advised the Tribunal that within the first week of the tenancy she noticed a sponginess to the floor by the French doors. When the landlord came to do a routine inspection several months later, the tenant told him about the spongy feeling of the flooring.
The landlord ripped up the carpet and saw that a piece of the flooring in front of the French doors was rotten. The landlord provided the Tribunal with photos of the rotten flooring and what the area looked like before the carpet was ripped up.
The photos, once the carpet was lifted, show a badly decomposed particle board with black mould and a water mark covering an area.
There was no evidence on the carpet to suggest there was a problem with the flooring underneath the carpet. The carpet did not exhibit any water stains or marks. The only time the problem was known was when the carpet was ripped up by the landlord.
The parties had been to mediation prior to this hearing. There were two other issues raised by the landlord that were resolved at mediation. The Mediated Order clearly states that the only issue for the Tribunal was the damage flooring.
At this hearing, the landlord tried to resurrect issues that had been heard and resolved at the Mediation. I refused to hear from him on those matters. Establishing proof
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord said he believed the tenant left the French doors open the whole time and that has caused wetness to come into the property and rot the flooring.
In support of that claim, the only evidence produced was the photographs and a builder quote to fix the “rotting flooring.”
I explained to the landlord that as it was his claim, he has the burden of proving his claim. He said twice he saw the French doors were open during the tenancy and that the tenant should have raised this with him earlier if she had concerns.
The residential Tenancies Act 1986 covers the issue of damage and a tenant’s liability as follows:
When tenant liable s49 B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (1) A tenant is not excused from liability or obligation by section 49A(1) if, and to the extent that,— a) the destruction or damage was intentionally done or caused by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L; or b) the destruction or damage was the result of an act or omission by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L and the act or omission occurred on or about the premises and constitutes an imprisonable offence. (2) To the extent provided in subsection (3), the tenant is liable to the landlord for destruction of, or damage to, the premises that is caused by a careless act or omission of the tenant or of a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L, other than an act or omission described in subsection (1). (3) The tenant’s liability under subsection (2) is limited, — (a) if the property is insured against the destruction or damage, to the lesser of the applicable excess under the insurance and whichever of the following is applicable: (i)if the tenant pays an income-related rent within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, the market rent within the meaning of section 2(1) of that Act for the premises for a period of 4 weeks: (ii)in any other case, the rent under the tenancy agreement for a period of 4 weeks; or (b) otherwise, to whichever of the following is applicable: (i) if the tenant pays an income-related rent within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, the market rent within the meaning of section 2(1) of that Act for the premises for a period of 4 weeks: (ii)in any other case, the rent under the tenancy agreement for a period of 4 weeks (4) However, — (a) if any insurance moneys that would otherwise have been payable because of the destruction or damage are irrecoverable because of an act or omission of the tenant or of a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L, for the purposes of subsection (3) the property is treated as not insured against the destruction or damage (and therefore subsection (3)(b) sets out the limit of the tenant’s liability under subsection (2)); and (b) see also clause 19 of Schedule 1AA (for other circumstances where subsection (3)(b) sets out the limit of the tenant’s liability under subsection (2), regardless of whether the property is insured against the destruction or damage). (5) To avoid doubt, a tenant’s liability under subsection (2) may, if the tenancy agreement so provides or the tenant and landlord so agree, be satisfied by the tenant carrying out works to make good the destruction or damage up to a value of the liability limit in subsection 3. (6) Unless the damage is the result of an action described in subsection (1), a tenant’s obligations under section 42(6) (removal of a fixture) to repair damage or to compensate the landlord for expenses incurred in repairing damage are limited to work of a value, or payment of an amount, up to the liability limit set out in subsection (3). (7) Destruction or damage of which the landlord becomes aware after this section comes into force is presumed to have occurred after this section came into force unless the tenant proves otherwise. (8) If any destruction of, or damage to, the premises is proved to have occurred during any tenancy to which this Act applies, — (a) it is for the landlord to prove— (i) that any damage is not fair wear and tear; and (ii)that any destruction or damage occurred in circumstances described in subsection (1)(b); and (iii)that any insurance moneys are irrecoverable for the reasons described in subsection (4)(a); and (b)it is for the tenant to prove— (i)that any destruction or damage was not intentionally done or caused as described in subsection (1)(a); and (ii)that any destruction or damage was not caused by a careless act or omission described in subsection (2).
The applicant has not satisfied me of his claim because the landlord can not prove that this was intentional damage, nor that this occurred during this tenancy.
I am dismissing the landlords claim.
As the landlord is unsuccessful, I cannot reimburse the filing fee nor consider suppression of his name and details.

Order

The tenant application is withdrawn.
The landlord application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a Cantonese interpreter, who translated every word spoken at the hearing.
The tenant advised at the start of the hearing that she no longer wishes to pursue her claim as the bond was refunded to her. The tenant application has been withdrawn.
The landlord claimed that the tenant caused damage to the flooring of his property. Background:
This was a short, fixed term tenancy that commenced on 11 February 2023 and terminated on 5 August 2023.
The landlord advised that the tenant moved into the property on the same day that the previous tenant had moved out. The landlord did an inspection of the property and said at the hearing that he thought everything looked fine.
The tenant advised the Tribunal that within the first week of the tenancy she noticed a sponginess to the floor by the French doors. When the landlord came to do a routine inspection several months later, the tenant told him about the spongy feeling of the flooring.
The landlord ripped up the carpet and saw that a piece of the flooring in front of the French doors was rotten. The landlord provided the Tribunal with photos of the rotten flooring and what the area looked like before the carpet was ripped up.
The photos, once the carpet was lifted, show a badly decomposed particle board with black mould and a water mark covering an area.
There was no evidence on the carpet to suggest there was a problem with the flooring underneath the carpet. The carpet did not exhibit any water stains or marks. The only time the problem was known was when the carpet was ripped up by the landlord.
The parties had been to mediation prior to this hearing. There were two other issues raised by the landlord that were resolved at mediation. The Mediated Order clearly states that the only issue for the Tribunal was the damage flooring.
At this hearing, the landlord tried to resurrect issues that had been heard and resolved at the Mediation. I refused to hear from him on those matters. Establishing proof
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord said he believed the tenant left the French doors open the whole time and that has caused wetness to come into the property and rot the flooring.
In support of that claim, the only evidence produced was the photographs and a builder quote to fix the “rotting flooring.”
I explained to the landlord that as it was his claim, he has the burden of proving his claim. He said twice he saw the French doors were open during the tenancy and that the tenant should have raised this with him earlier if she had concerns.
The residential Tenancies Act 1986 covers the issue of damage and a tenant’s liability as follows:
When tenant liable s49 B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (1) A tenant is not excused from liability or obligation by section 49A(1) if, and to the extent that,— a) the destruction or damage was intentionally done or caused by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L; or b) the destruction or damage was the result of an act or omission by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L and the act or omission occurred on or about the premises and constitutes an imprisonable offence. (2) To the extent provided in subsection (3), the tenant is liable to the landlord for destruction of, or damage to, the premises that is caused by a careless act or omission of the tenant or of a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L, other than an act or omission described in subsection (1). (3) The tenant’s liability under subsection (2) is limited, — (a) if the property is insured against the destruction or damage, to the lesser of the applicable excess under the insurance and whichever of the following is applicable: (i)if the tenant pays an income-related rent within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, the market rent within the meaning of section 2(1) of that Act for the premises for a period of 4 weeks: (ii)in any other case, the rent under the tenancy agreement for a period of 4 weeks; or (b) otherwise, to whichever of the following is applicable: (i) if the tenant pays an income-related rent within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, the market rent within the meaning of section 2(1) of that Act for the premises for a period of 4 weeks: (ii)in any other case, the rent under the tenancy agreement for a period of 4 weeks (4) However, — (a) if any insurance moneys that would otherwise have been payable because of the destruction or damage are irrecoverable because of an act or omission of the tenant or of a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41 or 66L, for the purposes of subsection (3) the property is treated as not insured against the destruction or damage (and therefore subsection (3)(b) sets out the limit of the tenant’s liability under subsection (2)); and (b) see also clause 19 of Schedule 1AA (for other circumstances where subsection (3)(b) sets out the limit of the tenant’s liability under subsection (2), regardless of whether the property is insured against the destruction or damage). (5) To avoid doubt, a tenant’s liability under subsection (2) may, if the tenancy agreement so provides or the tenant and landlord so agree, be satisfied by the tenant carrying out works to make good the destruction or damage up to a value of the liability limit in subsection 3. (6) Unless the damage is the result of an action described in subsection (1), a tenant’s obligations under section 42(6) (removal of a fixture) to repair damage or to compensate the landlord for expenses incurred in repairing damage are limited to work of a value, or payment of an amount, up to the liability limit set out in subsection (3). (7) Destruction or damage of which the landlord becomes aware after this section comes into force is presumed to have occurred after this section came into force unless the tenant proves otherwise. (8) If any destruction of, or damage to, the premises is proved to have occurred during any tenancy to which this Act applies, — (a) it is for the landlord to prove— (i) that any damage is not fair wear and tear; and (ii)that any destruction or damage occurred in circumstances described in subsection (1)(b); and (iii)that any insurance moneys are irrecoverable for the reasons described in subsection (4)(a); and (b)it is for the tenant to prove— (i)that any destruction or damage was not intentionally done or caused as described in subsection (1)(a); and (ii)that any destruction or damage was not caused by a careless act or omission described in subsection (2).
The applicant has not satisfied me of his claim because the landlord can not prove that this was intentional damage, nor that this occurred during this tenancy.
I am dismissing the landlords claim.
As the landlord is unsuccessful, I cannot reimburse the filing fee nor consider suppression of his name and details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654389 — Mould & damp at 101 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654389 — Mould & damp at 101 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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