What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4772838?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4772838?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4772838?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4772838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9986361-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4772838?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4772838?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4772838?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4772838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9986361-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 9, 350 Kamo Road, Kamo, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4772838 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

The tenant’s application raised issues relating to water ingress, and a shower not draining properly.

The landlord’s application sought methamphetamine testing and decontamination costs, and the cost of repair to a pipe.

The hearing took place on 7 February 2024. Ms Whitehead attended the hearing in person in Whangarei. Mr Lemmon attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Tenant application Water ingress

Ms Whitehead submitted that: a. Soon into her tenancy she noticed that the carpet in a bedroom was wet. b. She raised this issue with Mr Lemmon. A handyman visited the property and investigated the problem, but no repairs were carried out. c. The problem recurs in heavy rain.

Mr Lemmon submitted that: a. There were no previous problems with water ingress at this property. b. When Ms Whitehead told him about the issue, he had it investigated. The tradesman could not locate any leaks. There are no water pipes in the bedroom. c. There is evidence of condensation in the property which means that the tenant is not adequately ventilating the property.

Water ingress can be difficult to identify and diagnose, particularly if it due to a roof leak or cladding leak.

It is a reasonable criticism that Mr Lemmon investigated the problem once, found no obvious leak, and then settled into the conclusion that the property is fine, and any dampness issues must be due to Ms Whitehead failing to ventilate the property.

However, balanced against this is the fact that there is no evidence about the frequency and severity of the water ingress. There is also no evidence about the frequency of Ms Whitehead’s communication about it – their communication was limited and was almost all verbal.

The fact that Ms Whitehead did not escalate matters to a written message or a breach notice supports Mr Lemmon’s argument that so far as he knew it was a one-off problem.

Ms Whitehead is the applicant in these proceedings, and she has the burden of proof.

In light of the limited and conflicting evidence available to me, my finding is that it is not proven that Mr Lemmon failed to meet his legal duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Shower drain

Ms Whitehead submitted the shower has never drained properly.

Ms Whitehead submitted that she advised the building’s maintenance man (Mike) about this.

Mr Lemmon submitted that Ms Whitehead should have told him about the problem and not Mike. Mike did not pass the information on to him. He was not aware of this issue until Ms Whitehead filed this application.

Landlords can only respond to maintenance issues that are brought to their attention. I understand why Ms Whitehead thought it was appropriate to tell Mike about the problem, but I also accept Mr Lemmon’s statement that it was not passed on to him.

Mr Lemmon has not failed to meet his maintenance obligation in respect of this issue. Landlord application Methamphetamine testing

Mr Lemmon submitted that he carried out a basic ‘cartridge’ test on the property before the start of the tenancy, and the result was negative.

Mr Lemmon had another test done in December 2023.

The result (per a report from Asset Property Inspections) was positive at a low level.

On 8 January 2024, Mr Lemmon issued an unlawful and invalid ‘notice’ to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of “constant and repeated breaches to body corp & the tenancy agreement” and “the positive meth result”. Ms Whitehead correctly ignored that notice, and she has since given her own 28- day notice to end the tenancy.

Mr Lemmon’s claim seeks the cost of the Asset Property Inspections sampling and testing and estimated de-contamination costs.

The claim is dismissed for the following reasons: a. There is no evidence of the negative pre-tenancy tests. b. Even if such evidence was provided, the cartridge test results are not good evidence of the status of the property at the start of the tenancy because: i. They are basic and rudimentary. ii. There is no evidence around how Mr Lemmon carried out the test and whether he followed the manufacturer’s instructions. iii. There is no evidence around what parts of the house Mr Lemmon tested. c. Landlords are entitled to carry out methamphetamine testing during a tenancy, but such testing is at the landlord’s cost. d. Even if it was proven that the contamination occurred during this tenancy (which it is not) the level of contamination does not justify a claim for de- contamination. Since 2018/19 the Tribunal has adopted and applied the recommendations of the Gluckman report, which states that de- contamination is required at levels of contamination above 15 micrograms per 100cm2 1 . In this instance the reported level of contamination was 2.17 micrograms on a 5-sample composite. Repairs to waste pipe

Ms Whitehead accepted this cost. Filing fee, name suppression

Each party must bear its own cost of the filing fee.

Both parties sought name suppression.

The Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party who has “substantially succeeded in proceedings” 2 .

Neither party has substantially succeeded in this instance.

The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 3 .

There are no particular interests or concerns that warrant suppression in this instance.

Therefore, name suppression is not granted to either party.