What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4766517?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4766517?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4766517?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4766517?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10308405-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4766517?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4766517?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4766517?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4766517?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10308405-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Lynn Street, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4766517 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms O’Connor was assisted at the hearing, and in preparing her claim, by Mr Courtis.

This tenancy started in March 2017 and ended in December 2023. This application was submitted on 14 December 2023. The tenant alleged multiple breaches of the landlord’s obligation in relation to Healthy Homes Standards, claimed exemplary damages and asked the Tribunal to determine whether a termination notice was lawful. General Principles

The Tribunal’s role was summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8], as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.”

An applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil standard; on the balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal may make orders for compensation and for exemplary damages. See s78 RTA. Compensation is awarded for actual losses arising from a proven breach of the other party’s obligations. Compensation may also be awarded for less tangible effects of established breaches such as loss of enjoyment or amenity of the tenancy. See Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225 for the approach to quantifying compensation for “general damages”.

Exemplary damages may be awarded, at the Tribunal’s discretion, where a party establishes that the other has intentionally committed an “unlawful act” as defined by the RTA. See s109 and schedule 1A RTA. Exemplary damages are intended to punish or deter. Analysis

The tenant made many general, non-specific complaints regarding the landlord, the landlord’s agents and the condition of the property. She did not provide any assessment of loss or give evidence which would have allowed me to make an award for general or exemplary damages.

The tenant’s allegations amount to claims for breaches of Heathy Homes Standards, breaches of insulation requirements, breaches of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations, unlawful entry, failure to lodge the bond within the prescribed timeframe and issuing an improper notice to terminate the tenancy. Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its 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). Ms O’Connor considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard and drainage standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.

This tenancy commenced in 2017. The date for compliance with the HHS would have been 1 July 2025. The landlord was not required to ensure compliance with the HHS during this tenancy. Claims for breaches of the HHS are dismissed. Insulation

The tenant’s allegations amount to a claim that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

The tenant gave evidence of the property being cold and damp. She drew an inference that it cannot have been properly insulated. Mr Courtis said insulation was thin and there was no sub-floor barrier. The tenant did not provide any evidence to corroborate claims that the insulation was not compliant. See King & Yushkova v Greene [2021] NZDC 23637.

In contrast, the landlord provided an insulation statement from smart energy solutions dated September 2018, recording that there was Terra Lana wool blanket to all ceiling areas that the insulation met the requirements of the RTA. The statement also recorded an exemption in relation to underfloor insulation. Neither party gave evidence which would cause me to question the statement.

The tenant did not establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its obligations in relation to insulation, as they applied during this tenancy. I note that a “top up” was required to achieve compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. Repair & Maintenance Obligations

The tenant gave evidence of the property being damp and requiring repairs. She said the repairs were not done by suitably qualified tradespeople. She also raised issues with drainage around the property.

The issues raised by the tenant amount to claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, 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 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character. The landlord must repair within a reasonable timeframe after knowledge of the need for repair. A tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need for repair, or the need for repair was apparent from observation.

The tenant raised myriad of issues with the property and provided some corroborative evidence from near the start of the tenancy. It is relevant that there was little evidence of issues existing or being raised during the remaining 5 to 6 years of the tenancy.

The landlord said that it repaired issues as they arose and provided some supporting evidence to corroborate that. I find that a window which was causing draught and dampness at the start of the tenancy was replaced. Recent photographs in landlord inspection reports do not appear to identify any dampness issues.

The evidence does suggest that there may have been issues with surface water draining away from the property. However, the tenant’s evidence was from 2017. The landlord’s representative gave evidence that surface water can be an issue in North Oamaru during particularly heavy rain but said that her observation of this property is that the drainage coped with regular weather events.

The tenant did not discharge the onus of proving its claims that the landlord has breached his repair and maintenance obligations. Entry Without Notice

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the property without consent or notice.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord acknowledged that he entered onto the property once, without notice but that the tenant asked him to leave, and he did. He did not enter the premises, so there has been no breach of s48. The Bond

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant claimed that the landlord may have breached this obligation but provided no evidence of the relevant dates; ie when she paid the bond and when it was lodged with the bond centre. Notice to Terminate the Tenancy

On 22 September 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 21 December 2023. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

An application under s54(1) RTA must be made within 28 days after the date of the receipt of the notice. This application was not made within time, so I cannot consider whether the notice was retaliatory.

Further, the reason given for termination was for the landlord to carryout renovation work, which he did between the tenancy ending and the date of hearing. As such, I find that the termination notice was validly given.

For the reasons set out above, the tenants claim is dismissed.