What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4760657?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4760657?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760657?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760657?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10164137-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4760657?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4760657?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760657?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760657?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10164137-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 277 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4760657 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy began on 21 February 2022 and ended on 08 November 2023.

The landlord has applied for compensation for $250.00 insurance excess they paid to have the floorboards repaired, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenant has applied for his bond to be refunded, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlord claimed the floorboards, which were of a linear timber or composite-timber material, were damaged by moisture leaking from a kitchen cupboard.

The tenant did not dispute the floorboards had been damaged. Nor did he dispute that the leak from the kitchen cupboard had caused the damage to the floorboards.

The landlord claimed that at an inspection in October 2022 the property manager noted that gaps in the floorboards had opened up, but there was no sign of moisture. At that time the property manager attributed the gaps in the floorboards to fair wear and tear.

The landlord claimed that at an inspection in October 2023, there was a mat on the kitchen floor which was covering the dampness of the floor.

The landlord claims there was a leak in a kitchen cupboard that the tenant would have, or should have noticed. The landlord claims the leak wasn’t revealed during inspections because the cupboard had a childproof latch on it, and the property managers didn’t check inside the cupboard. No information was given regarding the size of the leak.

The tenant stated that he told the property manager about the gaps in the floor at the first inspection in July 2022 and then again in October 2022, but the property manager didn’t do anything about the gaps.

The tenant’s information is loose around the specific dates he first noticed the leak in the cupboard and the dampness of the floor, but it is consistent in that it is towards the end of the tenancy.

When asked on one occasion about the leak in the cupboard the tenant stated he first noticed it two months before moving out; on another occasion he said he first noticed it one month before moving out.

Similarly when asked about the floor feeling damp, the tenant said on one occasion that he noticed the dampness approximately two months before moving out, and on another occasion he said two to three weeks before moving out.

The landlord did not have any information to dispute the tenant’s information on his time estimates for noticing the dampness. In fact the property managers failing to notice the leak or any dampness until around the same time that the tenant claims he first noticed them, tends to corroborate the tenant’s information.

The Residential Tenancy Act, 1986, (“the RTA”) section 40 states the following: 40Tenant’s responsibilities (1)The tenant shall— (d)notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs;

The tenant did not notify the landlord of the leak or the dampness in the floor because he says it was near the end of the tenancy and he was about to move out.

It is for the applicant, in this case the landlord, to convince me to the civil standard of “on the balance of probabilities” that the tenant was careless or intentional in his omission to notice and report the leak in the kitchen cupboard.

I accept the landlord’s information that the leak started near the beginning of the tenancy and initially caused gaps in the floorboards to open which was evident by July 2022. Over the next year, the floorboards became saturated and damaged beyond repair.

The gaps in the floorboards were as evident to the landlord as they were to the tenant as early as July 2022, first because they were in plain sight, and second because the tenant reported it. I do not find there was a responsibility on the tenant to investigate further, particularly given the property managers themselves saw no reason to look further into the problem.

The landlord has not provided any information that proves on the balance of probabilities that the tenant knew of the leak and did nothing about it earlier than September or October 2023. By this time the damage to the floorboards would have already be sustained.

Therefore, the tenant’s omission has not been proved to be causative of the damage.

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with his claim, I must reimburse his filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy began on 21 February 2022 and ended on 08 November 2023.

The landlord has applied for compensation for $250.00 insurance excess they paid to have the floorboards repaired, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenant has applied for his bond to be refunded, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed the floorboards, which were of a linear timber or composite-timber material, were damaged by moisture leaking from a kitchen cupboard.

The tenant did not dispute the floorboards had been damaged. Nor did he dispute that the leak from the kitchen cupboard had caused the damage to the floorboards.

The landlord claimed that at an inspection in October 2023, there was a mat on the kitchen floor which was covering the dampness of the floor.

The tenant did not notify the landlord of the leak or the dampness in the floor because he says it was near the end of the tenancy and he was about to move out.

Therefore, the tenant’s omission has not been proved to be causative of the damage.

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with his claim, I must reimburse his filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760657 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 277 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760657 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 277 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions