How much money was awarded in case 4675852?

Th Either Order 1 Above, Then The Te…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675852?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10995438-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4675852?

Th Either Order 1 Above, Then The Te…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675852?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10995438-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 519 Swanson Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4675852 — Mould & damp

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4675852?

The tribunal order states: By 21 November 2024, the landlord must repair the front gate pillar and gate, so

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675852. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
th either Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to	$1,000.00		th either Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to

By 21 November 2024, the landlord must repair the front gate pillar and gate, so that the gate is easily operable by the current tenant.

If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $1,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities. Balance of probabilities means “more likely than not”. In reaching this standard the applicant may produce corroborating information including witnesses, written documents and photographs in support.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, this means that; ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Failure to maintain

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises to certain standards.

The tenant claims that the landlord has not maintained the front gate in such condition as makes it possible for her to easily operate it. The concrete footing of the gate is broken and because of this, the tenant has for some time, not been able to open the gate to get her car onto the property.

The tenant wants the problem fixed. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant claims the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

The tenant produced a letter from a builder that referred to corrosion and holes in the aluminium joinery. The joinery is probably more than thirty years old. No photographs were produced in support of the application.

A HHS report dating from 31 March 2022 was produced by the landlord that stated that the property was compliant with the draught stopping standard.

I have never encountered holes in aluminium joinery sufficient to make it non- compliant with the HHS. Given the landlord’s contrary evidence and in the absence of photographs that clearly show holes in the aluminium joinery making the joinery non-compliant with the HHS, I am not persuaded of the breach. I find this claim not proved.

The tenant also claims the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations in relation to the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier (GMB) when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

The tenant claims there is no GMB.

The landlord concedes there is no GMB but stated that when a contractor did a site assessment on 29 August 2023, the installation of a GMB was cancelled because there is sufficient ventilation due to the subfloor not being enclosed.

The tenant did not produce any photographs of the subfloor as part of her application, but did show one photograph from her phone during the hearing. This photograph shows there is clearly insulation under the house, and it also shows that the subfloor appears to not be enclosed.

Based on the information provided today, I am not persuaded that the landlord is in breach of the HHS in relation to the premises not having a GMB installed as I am not persuaded the subfloor is enclosed. This claim is not proved.

The tenant also claims the landlord is in breach of the requirement to have efficient systems to drain storm water, ground water and surface water.

The landlord submitted that the property is on land that is recorded as a flood plain by council records. During heavy rain events, a lot of water flows down the driveway and through the tenant’s carport. This is exacerbated by council drains that also have a tendency to overflow during heavy rain events, onto the tenant’s driveway.

The tenant did not produce photographs of the flooding as part of her application but she did provide several undated short videos to watch on her phone during the hearing. The videos showed heavy rain, some drains and cess pits coping adequately with heavy water flow, some drains and cess pits over-flowing, and some cess pits that are possibly not functioning due to blockage.

The landlord stated that they responded appropriately to any jobs raised by the tenant. The landlord and tenant did not agree on all of the dates when jobs had been raised. For example, the tenant stated that a job was raised with the landlord on 29 May 2024. The landlord had no record of any job from that date, but did have a similar job from 9 May 2024, which the tenant believes she did not ever raise. The tenant provided a record of what she stated was a log of telephone calls made. I am not persuaded of that this information is reliable and in my view it is not conclusive evidence.

The tenant stated that the issues with drainage date back to 2017.

The landlord provided work records with photographs from 4 October 2023 that show a significant amount of work was undertaken at this time including checking and upgrading the drainage systems on the property.

The tenant provided two letters from drainlayers in effect saying that the flooding she reported to them would be the result of inadequate drainage systems.

When asked about flood events that have occurred since 4 October 2023, the tenant stated there had been three but she was unable to provide dates or details of any of them.

Having considered all the information provided today, it is clear that the drains and cess pits on this property are called on to cope with higher than usual volumes of water, and it is essential that they receive higher than usual maintenance from the landlord to ensure they are clear and functioning effectively.

However, I have not been persuaded the landlord is in breach of the HHS drainage standard with regard to the high volumes of water that flows down her property and through her carport in the events put before me today. The drains overflowing due to extreme weather events are not a breach of the HHS, and I have not been provided with information that is specific with dates and particular circumstances of the events.

I also note that drains can become blocked in the course of normal usage, in which case a landlord must act promptly to remedy the problem. However, a blocked drain or cess pit doesn’t prove the drainage system is inadequate.

These claims are not proved.

The tenant also stated that on 5 February 2023 there was an event when sewage started flowing across her lawn. The tenant called the landlord and was advised to vacate the premises which she did for three days until the problem had been remedied. The tenant’s and the landlord’s records are consistent with each other.

The tenant is seeking compensation from the landlord for having to relocate for three days.

The tenant stated that the plumber who came to fix the problem told her the cause may have been the heavy machinery working on the development on the adjoining property, breaking the sewer line. The tenant stated that she believed the landlord had some involvement in the development on the adjoining property and should therefore be liable for her relocation expenses.

The landlord stated that the development was independent, but the landlord subsequently leased the newly built premises.

The information provided by the applicant is not sufficient to tie the landlord to causing the tenant’s loss, and as a result I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has caused the tenant’s loss. This claim is not proved.

The tenant also alluded to several other claims including damage that was done to her garden and the loss of privacy when a fence was removed during the neighbouring development, breach of quiet enjoyment due to neighbours arguing and engaging in domestic violence, and breach of quiet enjoyment due to the neighbouring construction workers working beyond their allowed hours. In all of these claims, the information presented has not been sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord and I find these claims not proved.

No award for reimbursement of the filing fee is made.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675852. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
th either Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to	$1,000.00		th either Order 1 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to

By 21 November 2024, the landlord must repair the front gate pillar and gate, so that the gate is easily operable by the current tenant.

The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises to certain standards.

The tenant wants the problem fixed. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

A HHS report dating from 31 March 2022 was produced by the landlord that stated that the property was compliant with the draught stopping standard.

The tenant also claims the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations in relation to the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.

The tenant claims there is no GMB.

The tenant also claims the landlord is in breach of the requirement to have efficient systems to drain storm water, ground water and surface water.

The tenant stated that the issues with drainage date back to 2017.

The tenant provided two letters from drainlayers in effect saying that the flooding she reported to them would be the result of inadequate drainage systems.

When asked about flood events that have occurred since 4 October 2023, the tenant stated there had been three but she was unable to provide dates or details of any of them.

These claims are not proved.

The tenant is seeking compensation from the landlord for having to relocate for three days.

The landlord stated that the development was independent, but the landlord subsequently leased the newly built premises.

No award for reimbursement of the filing fee is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675852 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 519 Swanson Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675852 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 519 Swanson Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

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