What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4713891?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4713891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713891?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10103516-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4713891?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4713891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713891?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10103516-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

122B Isabella Street, Glengarry, Invercargill 9810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713891 — Mould & damp

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Before I consider the specific claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a tenant application, that means that it is for the tenant to establish his respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that he must establish that what he is claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The tenancy began on 20 March 2019. The premises consisted of a 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom single level house. The two tenants and their 14-year-old son were living there. The tenants vacated the property on 1 March 2024.
Section 45 RTA places a number of requirements on the landlord. In part, it requires a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under 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 tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues to Healthy Homes Standards within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenants say that no maintenance has been done on the property. They say that whatever attempts by the landlord at maintenance is irrelevant. Black mould:
The tenants say that there was black mould on the windowsills due to a lack maintenance. They say that the mould is reoccurring due to the rotting wood.
The landlord stated that when she did her inspection there was mould on the inside of the south bedroom. They say that the kitchen and bathroom windows had a rotten frame.
They have had three trades people attend. One left because of the attitude from the tenant. The remaining two prepared quotes.
The landlord has been trying for 18 months to replace the kitchen and bathroom windows but has found it difficult to rebuild timber windows.
The landlord was trying to get someone to replace the window with the same type of window framing. They found someone to do it until the trade person had an argument with the tenant. The landlord says that they had four different trade people attend with a view to replacing the window frame.
The landlord says that any mould around the bedroom window came about because of the tenant not ventilating the premises. Windows leaking:
The tenant says that the bathroom window was leaking. He says that he attempted to fix it himself although part of the window had deteriorated too far.
The landlord says that the top part of the window is a louvre window. She stated that it had been fixed numerous times. The bottom part of the window is a normal window which opens out. When she went to do the final inspection the window was closed tight and could not see how rain could get in.
The tenant says that both bathroom windows were leaking. He says that the landlord refused to attend on a rainy day to inspect. Draughts in the windows:
The tenant says that the landlord came round and put draught seal around the windows. He says that the entire house suffered from draught, including the front door.
The landlord obtained a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 1 October 2020. The report highlighted the draught and ventilation non-compliance. The landlord promptly then went about and had these issues sorted. Bedroom ceiling:
The tenant says that his son’s bedroom had a problem with the ceiling. The ceiling is a ‘scrim’ ceiling. The tenant says that it’s the backing which was coming off.
The landlord says that it is just the paper from the ceiling which is lifting and is in an otherwise good condition for the age of the property. Front door:
The tenant says that the front door opens outwards. He says that the door is unsafe when the wind catches it and has flown open in the wind several times and hit people. He says the door hit his son, his wife, and his mother.
The landlord says the original French doors were replaced with new aluminium French doors. She stated they had the council and builder confirm they are safe. They also accept that in a westerly wind it would catch the door. The landlord went over and above and installed a clear lite wall to help with the wind and provided photographic evidence of the same.
The landlord says that Southland Building Limited viewed the property and came to the conclusion that no porch was necessary over the French doors. To keep the tenants happy the owner had the porch built, nevertheless. Notice by tenant to vacate:
The landlord says that the tenants only gave two weeks’ notice instead of the usual 28 days. The landlord has not filed an application in respect of this.
The landlord says that the bond has been released.
The tenant is also claiming the cost of moving house of $2500.00, being the cost of the moving truck. The tenant has not filed any evidence in support of this claim.
The landlord provided a number of documents in support of their assertion that all reasonable attempts have been made to address the issues raised by the tenant. The evidence filed in support is comprehensive and convincing, and includes: a. Invoice from Turnhout Contracting dated 6 October 2023 for $3974.40 in respect of constructing a veranda over the deck; b. Invoice from TS Property Maintenance dated 17 October 2023 for $145.00 in respect of assessing driveway and filling potholes; c. Invoice from R and K Maintenance dated 28 March 2023 for $152.38 in respect of cleaning the spouting; d. Invoice from Lakes Lawn Mowing dated 25 March 2023 for $172.50 for the cutting and removal of overhanging tree branches; e. Invoice from Southland Real Estate dated 4 October 2022 for $258.75 in respect of cleaning the spouting; f. Invoice from Goble Building and Decorating Limited dated 16 August 2022 for $1725.00 in respect of building a flashing around the rotten part of window and securing it to stop the draught around the window. Work also included cutting out the rotten timber on doorstep and the supporting door frame and install flashing over the affected areas; g. Letter dated 27 July 2022 from Southland Building Limited of a request from the tenant for a porch over the north facing door. The letter confirmed that under the Building Act there was no requirement for this to be constructed; h. Email from Southland Real Estate dated 25 July 2022 confirming that a third contractor had been engaged to repair the back doorstep and frame, along with the bathroom window; i. Invoice from Southland Building Limited dated 22 July 2022 for $80.00 in respect of providing a quote for the installation of a porch; j. A 14-day Notice served on the tenant on 10 June 2022 directing that the tenant does not interfere with the work of tradespeople who are sent to the property. The Notice recorded that they have had two tradesmen refusing to do work at the property because of interference by the tenant and the tenant’s attitude. k. Email to Invercargill Glass and Mirror dated 20 June 2022 in respect of the aluminium door. The email noted that the tenant is complaining that the door catches in the wind and slams open. They asked if a door restrictor can be added or whether the door can be reinstalled so that it opens inwards instead; l. Invoice from Nexus Property Services Limited dated 19 November 2021 for $80.50 in respect of testing for window leaks; m. Invoice from Nexus Property Services Limited dated 15 July 2021 for $159.97 in respect of draught sealing around dining room window, top and side of south side of door and awning window in bedroom; n. Invoice from GeeDee Electrical Limited dated 17 May 2021 for $690.00 in respect of replacing the rangehood; o. Healthy Homes Inspection Report dated 1 October 2020 noting the non- compliance in respect of draughts and ventilation; p. Invoice from Invercargill Glass and Mirror dated 11 September 2020 for $3455.06 in respect of supplying and fitting new door with clear double- glazed French door and glass; q. Invoice from Inside Systems Limited dated 22 February 2020 for $637.96 in respect of replacing ridging and roof repairs; r. Invoice from R and R Maintenance dated 5 November 2019 for $197.54 in respect of filling potholes in driveway and attending to spouting.
The landlord also filed further evidence in support of their response that they have taken all reasonable steps to maintain the property. A message from Southland Real Estate dated 15 August 2022 to the owner noted the following: We will have to get this job done. The last contractor walked off the job because of the tenant’s attitude. The next contractor can’t do the work for several months. This builder will cut away the rotten door frame and replace it and re-build the rotten back doorstep. He will also take away the bathroom window and replace the rotten board at the bottom. We are not putting in a verandah or windbreak as I had a building inspector look at the property and he said one is not required under the Building Act. The tenant keeps threatening us with the Tenancy Tribunal but once these repairs are done I don’t think he will have anything to complain to the Tribunal about. Please give your approval. Thanks.
This request was approved by the owner.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may order exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair:
“...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...
By the same token, a tenant also has a duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate and limit the damage or loss arising from the landlord’s alleged breach of their responsibilities.
The tenants have not satisfied me that the landlord breached their obligations in respect of Healthy Homes Standards by failing to maintain. Having carefully considered all evidence provided by the landlord it is my view that they took all reasonable steps to address the maintenance issues raised and to have the property Healthy Homes compliant. I find that there is very little more the landlord could have done, over and above the steps taken during the tenant’s occupation of this property. The landlord also stated during the hearing that one of the property managers felt uneasy dealing with the tenant due to his behaviour.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application is dismissed.
I also dismiss the tenant’s oral claim for compensation of $2500.00 in respect of moving costs. The tenant claims that he should be reimbursed for the cost of relocating from Invercargill, the cost being the removal truck fee. This claim was not included in the tenant’s written application filed on 16 October 2023.
I see no evidence filed in support of this claim, and nothing which links the landlord to this expense. The cost of moving from one property to another is a common occurrence for most tenants and one which a landlord should not be responsible for.
Because the tenant has been unsuccessful in his application I do not reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713891 — Mould & damp at 122B Isabella Street, Glengarry, Invercargill 9810

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713891 — Mould & damp at 122B Isabella Street, Glengarry, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions