What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4827557?

The tribunal order states: Both parties confirmed that Katherina Roessler is no longer a tenant at the

How much money was awarded in case 4827557?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4827557?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4827557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10230156-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4827557?

The tribunal order states: Both parties confirmed that Katherina Roessler is no longer a tenant at the

How much money was awarded in case 4827557?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4827557?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4827557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10230156-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 73 Tennyson Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4827557 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Oquist and Mr Mulla attended for the landlord.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Healthy Homes

Emmanuel Adonay Mendoza Romo claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

Emmanuel Adonay Mendoza Romo considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard, HHS ventilation standard, HHS insulation standard, HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard, and HHS draught stopping 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.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) of the Act.

The applicant gave evidence that he considered the property required more ventilation, cost more to heat than it should and was cold and mouldy as a consequence of the alleged breaches. He accepted that he had not communicated these issues to the landlord.

The landlord confirmed that they had received no complaints of this nature from this tenant or prior tenants of the property.

The applicant provided a healthy home assessment report which he had obtained on 11 December 2023 (2023 assessment).

That assessment showed that the property fell short of the healthy homes standards relating to the above matters.

The landlord’s own assessment, completed on 24 February 2021 (2012 assessment), showed that the property was compliant in terms of heating, insulation and drainage.

The landlord provided an invoice to show that draught stopping had been completed following the 2021 report (on 5 April 2021).

The landlord provided evidence that they had received professional advice that neither the kitchen nor bathroom fans could be made compliant without significant works being done.

They were advised that the kitchen fan could only reasonably be installed if the entire kitchen was renovated.

They were advised that the exterior ventilation of the bathroom fan would require scaffolding and would be impractical for a variety of reasons.

The landlord may wish to have the HHS compliance reviewed given the information contained in the 2023 report but there is insufficient evidence that they have breached the HHS and there is no evidence at all of any intention to do so. No exemplary damages can or should be awarded.

Reasons