What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4887300?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 4887300?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4887300?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4887300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10430440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4887300?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 4887300?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4887300?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4887300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10430440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Ashbury Avenue, Silverdale, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4887300 — Mould & damp

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 26 July 2024: a. Replace the toilet. As an alternative to compliance with Order 1(a) the landlord must pay the tenant $1000.00 immediately. b. Replace the flooring in the toilet area. As an alternative to compliance with Order 1(b) the landlord must pay the tenant $800.00 immediately. c. Fix the window in the toilet so that it opens and shuts. As an alternative to compliance with Order 1(c), the landlord must pay the tenant $300.00 immediately. d. Seal the hole in the wall of the toilet where the pipe goes out. As an alternative to compliance with Order 1(d), the landlord must pay the tenant $800.00 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 1(a) to 1(d) above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2900.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The tenant must allow access for all repairs and tradespeople when the required notice has been given.
Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent for Michael Lee Hadley are to pay Michael Stephen Williams, Janet Okeroa Williams, Guarantor: Mary Jan Wano $20.44 immediately being reimbursement of the filling fee.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claimed for compensation, work orders and breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. The claim for a work order in relation to the oven was withdrawn by the tenant at the hearing.
Mr Williams attended on behalf of the tenants as his wife is too unwell to attend. Mr Masters and Ms Master appeared on behalf of Quality Rental Management Limited, QRM.
The tenancy began on 24 April 2005 and was initially managed by the owner’s mother, Mrs Hadley. The owner remained overseas and QRM took over the role as property managers in 2021.
QRM stated many times during the hearing that the tenants had worked hard at the premises and looked after them extremely well during their tenancy. They said that the first they heard of the tenants’ claims was in the application to the Tenancy Tribunal.
QRM said that they had attempted to attend to the issues raised and proof of compliance with the insulation standard was provided and acknowledged by the tenant.
This is a 19-year tenancy and Mr Williams said that from the earliest days they had issues with mould and getting the owner to attend to any repairs or compensate them for any work that they had done. They would ask for something to be attended to and then be told that the owner would not give his permission.
The current landlords, QRM, said that the owner, while acknowledging that he had to comply with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, was considering removing the house prior to 2025, when all rentals are required to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).There was no evidence of any steps having been taken in relation to the house removal. Mould
The tenant said that mould was an issue throughout the house and although the premises had been insulated top and bottom and had a heat pump installed it kept coming back. Mr Williams said that every three months he would clean the mould and feared that his use of detergent may have made it worse. His use of stronger chemical’s now meant that once cleaned, the tenants would have to move to another room because of the strong smell.
Both tenants suffered with breathing and lung health issues. Mrs Williams is now seriously ill. The tenant believes that this is due to the condition of the premises, but no evidence was provided supporting this.
The landlords said that when they visited the premises and conducted inspections nothing was noted about a mould problem. The previous property manager also had not raised any concerns.
The tenant provided a photo of some mould in the lounge ceiling which he said was after he had cleaned it.
There were no photographs provided of any other areas of mould or when the tenant claimed that it was really bad. The tenant said that he specifically cleaned it before inspections so this would explain the landlords lack of knowledge about the problem.
Due to the lack of evidence provided supporting the claim, it is dismissed. Work orders
The tenant claims that the landlord did not fix the problems in the toilet. These were, holes in the toilet wall, toilet leak and staining, unable to clean the toilet properly, lifted flooring and window that did not close properly.
The tenant wants these problems fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Holes

The tenant said that there were holes in the toilet walls. The landlord agreed but said that they were merely cosmetic where an old vent holes or outlet pipes were and that were not open to the outside. One had a patch covering the hole had not been plastered over.
The tenant provided photographs by way of email after the hearing. These were forwarded to the landlords, and they were given the opportunity to comment on them. No correspondence was received. The photos showed a large open hole in the side of the wall that, contrary to the landlord’s evidence, was not patched. I find that the landlord has failed to maintain the wall in a reasonable state of repair. Leak
The tenant said that the toilet leaked. Rust and dirt stains came up which made it hard to keep clean. Photographs of the toilet surround were provided and the area behind the toilet where rust was accumulating.
The landlord arranged for a Plumber to attend the premises and provided a copy of the invoice which stated that the plumber had been unable to find a leak after flushing it multiple times. It was noted that the pan was getting old and ‘to let them know if they wanted to replace it.’
The tenant said that the toilet had been screwed down but comes loose again. He disagreed with the plumber’s report and believed that it leaks and smells.
The Plumbers evidence in the invoice was that there was no leak, despite the rust and photographs showing a discoloured and lifting floor.
I accept this evidence that there was no leak, but the tenants claim was that the toilet be upgraded. This tenancy has been for 19 years, and the toilet is clearly old and rusty. It is of concern that it is unable to be cleaned properly due to its age and condition. I find that the landlord has failed to maintain the toilet in a reasonable state of repair and the toilet is to be replaced. Lino
The tenant provided a photograph of the lino around the toilet which was separating and lifting. The landlord believed that this was not a trip hazard or health and safety issue.
The tenant disagreed and said that water leaked into this area and lifted it up.
The location of the lifted area was right in front of the pan and clearly shows separation and lifting. It is important that premises are maintained so that they do not ever become a health or a trip hazard. I find that the flooring in the toilet area must be replaced. Window
It was not disputed that the toilet had a louver window that did not completely close. The landlord said that the owner would not be replacing the window until required to under the HHS in 2025 but arranged for a handyman to attend to the window and fix it.
The tenant denied entry to the handyman as he believed that a previous conversation with the landlord meant there was going to be no fix until 2025.
This was clarified at the hearing as the landlord said the HHS compliance date was 2025 and that was when the landlord would legally have to attend to any draughts. However, a landlord still must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair and the landlord had attempted to do this.
The landlord is to repair the louver window and the tenant is to give the repair person access to do this.
I find the following alternative money orders if the landlord fails to complete the repairs by Friday 26 July 2024: a) Replace the toilet or, as an alternative, the landlord must pay the tenant $1000.00 immediately. b) Replace the flooring in the toilet area or, as an alternative, the landlord must pay the tenant $800.00 immediately. c) Fix the window in the toilet so that it opens and shuts or, as an alternative, the landlord must pay the tenant $300.00 immediately. d) Seal the hole in the wall of the toilet where the pipe goes out or, as an alternative, the landlord must pay the tenant $800.00 immediately.
The limit of charges for the tenant to do the work is $2900.00.

Did the landlord fail to comply with HHS draught stopping standard?

Michael Stephen Williams, Janet Okeroa Williams and Guarantor: Mary Jan Wano claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s 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). Michael Stephen Williams, Janet Okeroa Williams and Guarantor: Mary Jan Wano considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
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.
The compliance date for the current tenancy is 1 July 2025 so the landlord is not required to comply until this date.
This claim is dismissed.
The tenant spoke to all the garden work and maintenance that they had completed outside the premises. There was no claim made for compensation for this and the landlord acknowledged this work and the very high standard that the tenants had kept the premises to.
Because Michael Stephen Williams, Janet Okeroa Williams, Guarantor: Mary Jan Wano has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4887300 — Mould & damp at 17 Ashbury Avenue, Silverdale, Hamilton 3216

Tenancy Tribunal case 4887300 — Mould & damp at 17 Ashbury Avenue, Silverdale, Hamilton 3216

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord fail to comply with HHS draught stopping standard?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord fail to comply with HHS draught stopping standard?

Property management