What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781384?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4781384?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781384?

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 4781384?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9974157-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781384?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4781384?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781384?

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 4781384?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9974157-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 351 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4781384 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord had applied for a possession Order.

The tenant had applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations.

This tenancy has been relatively informal. The parties were friendly acquaintances when the tenancy started. Things have gone awry since the landlord decided to put the property on the market. General Principals

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 the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The applicant in each case must provide the Tribunal with the evidence necessary to prove its claims.

The Tribunal may make orders for compensation and for exemplary damages. See s78 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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. Landlord Application

The landlord applied for a possession Order.

From 11 February 2021, landlords cannot give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) RTA. The notice must meet the formal requirements set out in s51(3) RTA.

The landlord has put the property on the market for sale. He says that this is because of rising interest rates and financial constraints.

The landlord told the tenant the property was being sold and asked him to find somewhere else to live. The tenant said that he would. The discussion was confirmed in a text exchange on 30 September 2023.

The landlord relies on the text exchange in support of his application for a possession Order. The text does not satisfy the requirements of s51(3). Most significantly it does not specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises. See s51(3)(c), the notice period is critical to a landlord being able to obtain a possession Order. A tenant must be made aware of how long it has to vacate the premises.

While I conclude that the landlord had a valid reason for wanting to end the tenancy, he has not followed the proper form. The application is dismissed. Tenant Application

The tenant has made a cross-application seeking compensation of $25,000 and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations under s45 RTA relating to repairs and maintenance and Healthy Homes standards.

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.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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.

The tenant provided minimal corroborative evidence in support of its claims. He referred me to some photographs with a very small area of pale mouldy looking substance and photographs of old window frames. There is no record of issues being raised with the landlord. The landlord said that when issues were raised, he dealt with them and provided invoices for various repairs.

The fact that there may be some mould in a house is not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair; and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011).

Similarly, an applicant must provide more in the way of corroborative evidence of non-compliance with Healthy Homes Standards and insulation requirements. The District Court has confirmed that the only way to establish the insulation would be non-compliant would be “Physical inspection of the insulation to determine where it is located and to what depth”. The Court said that the Tribunal was wrong to rely on photographs taken from the manhole showing the general appearance of the insulation only. King & Yushkova v Greene [2021] NZDC 23637.

The evidence does not establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its obligations under s45 RTA. The claims are dismissed.

The tenant also claimed reimbursement for costs incurred in carrying out work on the property. Any work the tenant did was pre-emptive, without approval form the landlord and without the landlord agreeing to reimbursement. Further, the tenant did not provide any breakdown of the costs claimed or receipts for costs incurred. That claim is also dismissed.

As all claims have been dismissed, I have not reimbursed either filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord had applied for a possession Order.

The tenant had applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations.

The landlord applied for a possession Order.

From 11 February 2021, landlords cannot give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) RTA. The notice must meet the formal requirements set out in s51(3) RTA.

The landlord has put the property on the market for sale. He says that this is because of rising interest rates and financial constraints.

While I conclude that the landlord had a valid reason for wanting to end the tenancy, he has not followed the proper form. The application is dismissed. Tenant Application

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The evidence does not establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its obligations under s45 RTA. The claims are dismissed.

As all claims have been dismissed, I have not reimbursed either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781384 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 3, 351 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781384 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 3, 351 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions