What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4841920?

The tribunal order states: Lorraine Mariekore must pay Hayley Cheryl Ansell $2,020.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4841920?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4841920?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4841920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10443042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4841920?

The tribunal order states: Lorraine Mariekore must pay Hayley Cheryl Ansell $2,020.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4841920?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4841920?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4841920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10443042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39 Compton Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4841920 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4841920 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

Lorraine Mariekore must pay Hayley Cheryl Ansell $2,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation$2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,020.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,020.44
The claim against Min Sarginson Real Estate Limited is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant and representatives of Min Sarginson Real Estate Limited attended the hearing.
Mrs Mariekore did not attend but submitted documentary evidence and submission to the Tribunal. That information has been reviewed and considered when reaching this decision.
I have also reviewed and considered the comprehensive evidence ad submissions from the property manager and tenant. The Parties
Ms Ansell was the tenant under a fixed term tenancy agreement.
Min Sarginson Real Estate Limited was the property manager, as agent for the owner, Mrs Mariekore.
Mrs Mariekore resides overseas, so had appointed an agent, as required by s16A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have considered claims against Min Sarginson Real Estate (see s16A(5) RTA) and Mrs Mariekore as landlord. Mould & Dampness
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations in that the premises were damp and mouldy.
Section 45(1)(bb) RTA, requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenancy started on 11 January 2022. The premises were required to comply with HHS within 90 days of the start of the tenancy.
Mrs Marikore provided a Healthy Homes assessment report from the before the tenancy started which recorded that the premises are compliant. The inspection was carried out on 13 December 2021; in the summer.
Notwithstanding that report, the tenant experienced significant cold and dampness at the premises. This was evident from the first winter and raised by the tenant at the time. Both the tenant and property manager provided clear and consistent timeline of events. They were also consistent in their description of the mould issue during the second winter (2023) of the tenancy. The second winter was worse; it was agreed that the tenancy would end before the end of the fixed term and the tenant received a rent abatement of $800 ($160 per week for 5 weeks)
A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises (s45(1)(b) RTA). Further, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises (section 45(1)(c) RTA). One fundamental requirement is that “every house shall be free from dampness”. See Rule 15, Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
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 tenant has a statutory duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (section 40(1)(d) RTA). Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant claims that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable living condition. Their evidence was that during the tenancy they had to endure leaking, dampness and mould issues. They state that a roof leak was not properly investigated and repaired by Mrs Marikore (who sent a trade qualified family member to carry out the repair). The tenant provided photographs, medical evidence and a report from the CCC Environmental Health Team in support of her claims.
In response, Mrs Marikore believes that that the damp and mould problems had been caused through poor house-keeping and lack of proper ventilation by the tenants. Her family previously lived in the house and had no issues.
However, representatives of the property manager noted that the house was well ventilated during inspections.
A property inspection report completed by the property manager on 18 July 2023 refer to a roof leak and recurring mould. The leak had been on-going for several months and not properly repaired. At this time the tenant also had support from a Healthy Housing organisation and obtained a report from the Christchurch City Council.
The family stopped sleeping in the bedrooms and moved into the lounge while further investigation was carried out. About this time, Mrs Marikore decided to sell the property. It was agreed that the tenant could leave the fixed term early and was given a rent abatement because of the mould and dampness issues.
I find that the landlord has breached its obligation to provide premises free from dampness. The roof leak was not repaired in an effective or timely manner by Mrs Marikore, notwithstanding requests from the tenant and property manager.
I have also considered the evidence regarding ventilation and heating at the premises. I find that the mould and dampness was more than likely caused by an issue with the premises themselves, rather than the way the tenant was living. The tenant ventilated the premises, used the heating provided by the landlord and was removing half a dehumidifier tank of moisture from the premises in a 12-hour period.
I recognise how quickly the property manager acted when the extent of the issue became clear. I also give Mrs Marikore credit for releasing the tenant from the fixed term.
The tenant was also given a rent abatement. The credit was not at a level which properly recognised the inconvenience and stress to the tenant and the loss of amenity over two winters. I award further compensation of $2,000.
The award is made against the property owner. The property manager took all steps within its power to address the issues.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
In this case, the evidence did not establish that the landlord had acted intentionally. I make no award for exemplary damages.
As the tenant was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4841920 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

Lorraine Mariekore must pay Hayley Cheryl Ansell $2,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation$2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,020.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,020.44
The claim against Min Sarginson Real Estate Limited is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant and representatives of Min Sarginson Real Estate Limited attended the hearing.
Mrs Mariekore did not attend but submitted documentary evidence and submission to the Tribunal. That information has been reviewed and considered when reaching this decision.
I have also reviewed and considered the comprehensive evidence ad submissions from the property manager and tenant. The Parties
Ms Ansell was the tenant under a fixed term tenancy agreement.
Min Sarginson Real Estate Limited was the property manager, as agent for the owner, Mrs Mariekore.
Mrs Mariekore resides overseas, so had appointed an agent, as required by s16A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have considered claims against Min Sarginson Real Estate (see s16A(5) RTA) and Mrs Mariekore as landlord. Mould & Dampness
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations in that the premises were damp and mouldy.
Section 45(1)(bb) RTA, requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenancy started on 11 January 2022. The premises were required to comply with HHS within 90 days of the start of the tenancy.
Mrs Marikore provided a Healthy Homes assessment report from the before the tenancy started which recorded that the premises are compliant. The inspection was carried out on 13 December 2021; in the summer.
Notwithstanding that report, the tenant experienced significant cold and dampness at the premises. This was evident from the first winter and raised by the tenant at the time. Both the tenant and property manager provided clear and consistent timeline of events. They were also consistent in their description of the mould issue during the second winter (2023) of the tenancy. The second winter was worse; it was agreed that the tenancy would end before the end of the fixed term and the tenant received a rent abatement of $800 ($160 per week for 5 weeks)
A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises (s45(1)(b) RTA). Further, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises (section 45(1)(c) RTA). One fundamental requirement is that “every house shall be free from dampness”. See Rule 15, Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
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 tenant has a statutory duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (section 40(1)(d) RTA). Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant claims that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable living condition. Their evidence was that during the tenancy they had to endure leaking, dampness and mould issues. They state that a roof leak was not properly investigated and repaired by Mrs Marikore (who sent a trade qualified family member to carry out the repair). The tenant provided photographs, medical evidence and a report from the CCC Environmental Health Team in support of her claims.
In response, Mrs Marikore believes that that the damp and mould problems had been caused through poor house-keeping and lack of proper ventilation by the tenants. Her family previously lived in the house and had no issues.
However, representatives of the property manager noted that the house was well ventilated during inspections.
A property inspection report completed by the property manager on 18 July 2023 refer to a roof leak and recurring mould. The leak had been on-going for several months and not properly repaired. At this time the tenant also had support from a Healthy Housing organisation and obtained a report from the Christchurch City Council.
The family stopped sleeping in the bedrooms and moved into the lounge while further investigation was carried out. About this time, Mrs Marikore decided to sell the property. It was agreed that the tenant could leave the fixed term early and was given a rent abatement because of the mould and dampness issues.
I find that the landlord has breached its obligation to provide premises free from dampness. The roof leak was not repaired in an effective or timely manner by Mrs Marikore, notwithstanding requests from the tenant and property manager.
I have also considered the evidence regarding ventilation and heating at the premises. I find that the mould and dampness was more than likely caused by an issue with the premises themselves, rather than the way the tenant was living. The tenant ventilated the premises, used the heating provided by the landlord and was removing half a dehumidifier tank of moisture from the premises in a 12-hour period.
I recognise how quickly the property manager acted when the extent of the issue became clear. I also give Mrs Marikore credit for releasing the tenant from the fixed term.
The tenant was also given a rent abatement. The credit was not at a level which properly recognised the inconvenience and stress to the tenant and the loss of amenity over two winters. I award further compensation of $2,000.
The award is made against the property owner. The property manager took all steps within its power to address the issues.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
In this case, the evidence did not establish that the landlord had acted intentionally. I make no award for exemplary damages.
As the tenant was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4841920 — Tenancy dispute at 39 Compton Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4841920 — Tenancy dispute at 39 Compton Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions