What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724851?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Stuart Olsen and Karen MacGregor at 562 Centennial Marine

How much money was awarded in case 4724851?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724851?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9895247-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724851?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Stuart Olsen and Karen MacGregor at 562 Centennial Marine

How much money was awarded in case 4724851?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724851?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9895247-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

562 Centennial Marine Drive, Matawhero, Gisborne 4071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4724851 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Ms McGregor and Mr Olsen, the tenants, along with Holly McGregor as a support person attended the hearing. Ms Saunders attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.

The tenant has applied to challenge a notice of termination issued by the landlord, as well as for other miscellaneous orders.

It was discussed with the tenants that historic issues they raised in relation to their concerns about management of the property by the property manager must relate to a claim and that the Tribunal cannot determine this issue without a valid claim. The tenants said they understood this. Therefore, the focus of the hearing was whether the notice to terminate issued by the landlord, pursuant to section 51(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) was valid.

The landlord said they initially issued a 90-day notice in May 2023 providing that the tenants were to vacate the property on 6 August 2023, on the grounds that the owner had decided they were going to either fully renovate the property or demolish it. Either way, the landlord said it would not be feasible for the tenants to continue living at the property. This letter, a copy of which was provided, was undated.

The landlord said that, when it came to the date the tenants were supposed to vacate the property around 6 August 2023, the tenants said they had not received the landlord’s 90-day notice. After discussion with Tenancy Services and the owner, the landlord decided to reissue another 90-day notice, a copy of which was provided. The second 90-day notice was dated 23 August 2023, was hand delivered to the tenants by a courier, who took a photo of the document being delivered to the tenants, and the landlord texted the tenant to say this letter had been hand delivered. The 90-day notice dated 23 August 2023, had as its reasons for termination the following: “The trust believe that the property requires extensive repairs and renovations. It would not be practical for the property to be occupied while this work is being carried out.”

The 90-day notice of 23 August 2023 met the requirements set out in section 51(3) RTA.

The landlord said a routine property inspection in August 2022, where the tenants said there was water coming down the lounge walls, set off a process of them discussing with the owner how to address this issue. They arranged for a building inspector to assess and report on the condition of the property and provided a copy of the building inspector’s report dated 19 December 2022.

The builder reported that the block wall cladding of the house showed areas of damage and major cracking and required major repairs. It said the guttering was blocked and appeared disconnected on the inside of the panelling, resulting in overflowing and leaking everywhere. There was no flashing noted over the exterior windows, to be monitored for moisture ingress. The downpipes were not connected to the stormwater drainage system and were then discharging onto the ground, which the report said could cause ponding and damage to the foundations. The decking roof downpipe was noted to be internally broken and leaking onto the deck.

Internally, the building inspector’s report said there were multiple high moisture readings and visible signs of moisture damage recorded to the ceiling, wall linings and carpet, likely caused by the damage to the external guttering and cladding. The main bathroom vanity was severely water damaged, requiring replacement, the shower fitting not sealed property, with a visible leak by the shower.

The builder further noted the shower leak had caused visible moisture damage to the wall in the passageway, where the wall lining and carpet would require replacements. The wall lining had been removed and the exposed framing showed visible water damage, which needed to be investigated by a plumber for further repairs. One bedroom was noted to have a hole covered in the wall with visible vermin and moisture damage to the carpet and wall lining in that area.

There were also repairs noted as being required for the toilet, a damaged window jamb, paint defects, missing or broken window hardware, worn lino and carpeting, areas requiring cleaning and an old kitchen unit nearing the end of its life span.

The building inspector surmised that, due to the cracking on the exterior cladding, the windows not having flashings and the blocked guttering, this property is not weathertight, and all the above-mentioned issues are causing moisture ingress into the interior. He believed the property to present in below- average condition and said that it would need repairs and maintenance to bring the property to good condition. The inspector commented that, at the time of inspection, multiple rooms were full of clutter and possessions, which did not allow them to inspect all of the interior flooring and wall linings. He noted that further defects could be concealed in this area.

The tenants acknowledged that there were some issues with the property but believed that if the guttering were repaired, that would solve 90% of the property’s issues. They said they have lived at the property for around 14-15 years, have had other young family living with them there also, and that they have not had issues living there. The tenants spoke of the maintenance they have done on the property themselves over the period of the tenancy and did not feel they had been fully supported about this by the landlord. They said they were aware of inspections and reports being done but not the findings, until around August 2023. They believed that if the property had been properly maintained by the landlord, the repairs now sought would not be required. The landlord disputed this and said they have responded to all issues raised by the tenants to repair any issues at the property, and provided a list of work orders to support this.

The tenants said they did not agree with all the building inspector’s comments and did not believe them to be specific enough, in terms of which rooms the comments about damage and repairs required could be attributed to. They said they have managed rats in the area well (there is a dump nearby) and emphasised how they have contributed to the maintenance of the property themselves over the term of their tenancy. They reiterated concerns about the management of the property and also said that they remain willing to work with the landlord about repairs, if they are able to move back into the property after any repairs.

Ms Saunders did not provide quotes from tradespeople in relation to repair work intended. She said this was because of an incident with Mr Olsen when she was visiting the property when she said he was verbally abusive, talked about shooting himself and his animals, and was hitting his head. After that, she said after discussion with the owner, they did not want to put any tradespeople into a potentially unsafe or unpredictable situation. The tenants denied the incident had unfolded as described by Ms Saunders. Mr Olsen said he would never say he would shoot himself nor did he hit himself. He mentioned that he has health issues that can impact on what he says at times though. Ms Saunders said further that, given the building inspector’s comments about the clutter at the property preventing his access and the possibility of further defects being concealed, there could be more repair work required than is currently in the building inspection report. She stated the landlord is unable to proceed with any further investigations until the tenant’s belongings are removed. The tenants said they are willing to move these belongings and allow access for further investigation by the landlord.

The landlord also pointed to a Healthy Homes Standards report dated 14 December 2021 for the property that confirmed that the property is non- compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to the moisture ingress and drainage standard, as well as the ventilation standard. A copy of this report was provided. She said this is also being factored into the landlord’s decision whether to repair or demolish, and to the landlord’s decision to give the tenants notice to terminate.

Ms Saunders maintained that, as soon as the property is vacant, the landlord will have tradespeople attend the property for further investigations and quotes immediately, as to the cost of repair work involved. Should repair work not prove financially viable, she said the owner has said they would then consider demolishing the house, which is a small part of a large parcel of land. Ms Saunders said that, if the landlord opted for repairs, the wall linings almost everywhere inside the house would have to be removed to assess the potential source of the high moisture readings. Further, she said that potentially, the kitchen and bathroom would also need to be replaced, depending on what was found. She claimed that whichever option was chosen, the tenants would not be able to continue to occupy the premises. The Law

Section 51(2)(f) RTA provides for a landlord of a periodic tenancy to terminate a tenancy with 90-days’ notice if extensive alterations, refurbishments, repairs or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken and the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.

Section 51(2)(f) RTA provides for the landlord to terminate a tenancy with 90- days’ notice if the premises are to be demolished and the demolition is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.

I note the landlord informed the tenants in their first 90-days’ notice that they were terminating the tenancy as the property would either require extensive repairs or would be demolished. The tenants confirmed there were discussions about the possibility of demolishing the house between they and the landlord also. As such, the tenants have been aware that the dual possibilities of either major repairs or demolishing the house have been considered by the landlord, and not any other option, for some time. The tenants confirmed they remain living at the property as at the hearing date of 30 January 2024.

Both the building inspection report and the Healthy Homes Standards report indicate issues with moisture ingress, drainage and ventilation at the property. The latter indicated the property is non-compliant as to these standards. The building inspection report has assessed some major repairs as being required to both the exterior and potentially the interior of the property, the latter in relation to having to remove all wall linings to find the source of the high moisture level readings and has recommended further investigation by specialists to determine the extent of the damage and repairs required in some areas of the property. There have also been a number of minor repairs noted as required by the building inspection report. The landlord believed there may be further repairs identified should they have access to the property without being impeded by the tenants’ belongings. The evidence indicated the repairs required are extensive.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

It is understandable that the tenants would be reluctant to leave a home in which they have lived for some time. However, both the building inspection report and the Healthy Homes Standards report show there are extensive issues with the property which require repairs. The issues identified by the building inspection report, particularly, but not limited to, major cracking in the exterior, lack of flashing on windows and blocked guttering, all potentially impacting the weathertightness of the property, and high moisture readings consistently in the interior of the house, which will require all wall linings to be removed to ascertain the extent and cause of these readings according to the landlord, as well as other numerous repairs identified as required, indicate a situation in which it will be impracticable for the tenants to remain in occupation during this repair work. The landlord is keen to have building tradespeople attend the property immediately following any termination of the tenancy, which they said would be within 90-days of the end of the tenancy. Given this evidence and these circumstances as outlined above, I find the landlord has proved the grounds set out in section 51(2)(f) RTA. As such, I find the 90-day notice of 23 August 2023 issued by the landlord to the tenants to terminate the tenancy in this regard is valid. Therefore, the tenancy is terminated.

Given the length of time the tenants have lived at this property, their health issues and their requirement to rehome their animals and find alternate accommodation, the tenancy is to terminate at 11:59pm on Monday 4 March 2024.

As the tenants have not been successful in their claim, I do not award the filing fee.

Neither party requested name suppression.

Reasons

Ms McGregor and Mr Olsen, the tenants, along with Holly McGregor as a support person attended the hearing. Ms Saunders attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.

The tenant has applied to challenge a notice of termination issued by the landlord, as well as for other miscellaneous orders.

The 90-day notice of 23 August 2023 met the requirements set out in section 51(3) RTA.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

As the tenants have not been successful in their claim, I do not award the filing fee.

Neither party requested name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724851 — Mould & damp at 562 Centennial Marine Drive, Matawhero, Gisborne 4071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724851 — Mould & damp at 562 Centennial Marine Drive, Matawhero, Gisborne 4071

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