What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4962034?

The tribunal order states: Dion Algar and Lotchie Algar must pay Dale Gray and Maria Gray $2,169.85

How much money was awarded in case 4962034?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,342.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962034?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962034?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11230308-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4962034?

The tribunal order states: Dion Algar and Lotchie Algar must pay Dale Gray and Maria Gray $2,169.85

How much money was awarded in case 4962034?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,342.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962034?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962034?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11230308-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Upland Road, Omiha, Waiheke Island 1081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4962034 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4962034 — net $2,169.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,342.85	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,169.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,169.85

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4962034 — net $2,169.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,342.85	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,169.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,169.85

Order

Dion Algar and Lotchie Algar must pay Dale Gray and Maria Gray $2,169.85 immediately, being rent arrears to 24 July 2024. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$3,342.85 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$3,369.85 Minus Bond-$1,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,169.85
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (6512872-001) to Dale Gray and Maria Gray immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a cross application.
The landlords have applied for rent arrears, filing fee, refund of bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s have applied for a refund of the bond, rental rebate, reduction of 28 day notice period, exemplary damages for failure to maintain, compensation for loss possessions, emotional harm and stress and an attachment order on landlords’ income.
The Tribunal is not involved in enforcement of Orders and therefore cannot make attachment orders. Background:
The property was built in the 1930’s but refurnished over time. The last refurbishment was prior to the landlords purchasing the property in 2021. The landlords lived in the property for a period of time after purchasing it. The landlords had one previous tenant, Corey Nicholas, before this tenancy.
In October 2023, the tenants signed a tenancy agreement and moved into the property. Without notice to the landlords, the tenants vacated the property on 26 June 2024 after saying there were mould issues with the property.
The tenants first raised the issue of the mould on 14 June 2024 by an email. The tenants also said that they could not pay the rent and advised that they were going to look for a new property to rent.
At the time of the 14 th of June email, the landlord offered to send tradespeople to the house to investigate the mould issues.
On 24 June 2024, the tenants rang the landlord to seek a rent reduction. The landlords reduced the rent, and the tenants were to look for a new property.
On 26 June 2024, the tenants sent an email to the landlords saying that the property had very bad mould issues and consequently their baby had developed a serious skin infection which led to the baby being hospitalised.
The tenants stated that they were afraid to return to the property because of the mould and had immediately abandoned the property. The landlords replied that they were concerned as there had been no mould issues for them or their previous tenant.
The tenants removed their possessions and car from the property on 12 July 2024. The last rent received from the Tenants was 23 May 2024.
The landlords had given the tenants three weeks free rent during the tenancy as they were financially struggling. Landlords’ application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount of $3342.85 owing.
The tenants do not dispute that they owe this amount in rent arrears.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.
As the landlord has been successful, I must reimburse their filing fee and refund the bond to offset the debt owed by the tenants to the landlord. Tenants’ application
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standard, which means it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof.
It is for the tenants to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the tenants fail to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the tenants to provide the necessary evidence.
Dion Algar and Lotchie Algar 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). Dion Algar and Lotchie Algar considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage 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. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances, such as here where it is not reasonably practical to install a ground moisture barrier.
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 breach and rent rebate relate to the tenants claim that the landlord failed to maintain the property by not supplying a moisture barrier underneath the house and having a lack of ventilation in the bedroom because two out of the three windows were screwed shut.
The tenants claim that as a result of the lack of ventilation in the bedroom and lack of a moisture barrier under the house, that dampness and mould occurred.
The tenants rely on medical opinions given to them when their baby was in hospital, that the skin infection was mould and damp related. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the babies discharge papers from hospital, which stated that the baby has severe eczema, multiple allergies, and a secondary skin infection. The tenants said none of the doctors or health professions were prepared to put in writing that the cause of the skin conditions was mould related.
The tenants also claim that their flatmates left because they were being affected by mould. The tenants provided a letter from one of the flatmates who claimed that her partner had a constant running nose, coughing and sneezing, and that they found mould on the wall behind their bed. They attribute the partners ill health to mould issues.
The tenants provided a few photos of the property which did show a few dark spots on blinds, walls, and windowsills.
The landlord said that only one window in the bedroom was fixed and that the other two windows open. Furthermore, that the landlord has obtained a builder who assessed the underneath of the house as too swallow to install a moisture barrier. The tenants were aware of this advise from the builder but disputed the correctness of that opinion.
I have been advised by the landlord that a professional builder has accessed the site and stated that the moisture barrier cannot be installed, presumably without carrying substantial building work.
Attached to the Tenancy Agreement the landlord completed a “Healthy Homes Standards- Current level of Compliance” form. The landlord ticked “yes” to the form as having guttering and downpipes that efficiently drain storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate storm water system.
The tenants mentioned water running under the house in heavy rain but did not take it any further other than to mention that this added further dampness issues under the house.
The issue I have is that the landlord provided photos of the property taken after the tenancy ended and the property appears to be in excellent condition. The landlords lived in the house before tenanting it and moved into the house after these tenants. The landlords claim that they did not encounter any issues with mould. The landlords provided a statutory declaration from the previous tenant, Corey Nicholas who also stated that he had lived in the house for nearly 2 years, and he never encountered any mould or mildew issues. Mr Nicholas said he kept the house well ventilated, used the heat pump, which had a dehumidifier function, when needed.
The landlords say that any mould was due to the tenants not ventilating the property and not keeping the house clean.
While I have competing opinions from two sides, I am not satisfied that the tenants have proven that the landlords breached their obligations to maintain the property.
The landlord has sought to obtain and expert opinion regarding the moisture barrier. The house is compliant where possible given the age and condition of the property. This is clearly not a neglected house, it well presented, and the landlords have lived in the property before and after the tenancy without issue.
During the tenancy, the landlord immediately responded to leaks by the power meter, and entrance way that were remediated the same day.
For the sake of completeness even if I did find that the landlord had failed to maintain their property, my next hurdle was whether they had committed the unlawful act intentionally.
I could not have found that the landlords did so intentionally. The landlords were diligent and proactive in responding to tenants’ issues and concerns.
There is no denying the tenants baby was very sick and had terrible skin ailments. I have not been provided with any evidence that the illness was directly related to mould in this property.
I am dismissing the tenants claim that the landlord failed to maintain the property and the exemplary damages. I do not have to consider whether there should be a rent rebate for any breach.
The tenants claim compensation for lost possession due to mould. The tenants have not quantified their claim nor provided proof of ownership, value, loss and the connection between the landlord’s actions/property and the loss of their items.
The tenants claim compensation for emotional harm and stress. I have absolutely no doubt that the tenants would have been very distressed and suffered harm as a result of their baby being so unwell and in hospital. I cannot make a connection between the landlords’ actions that have caused the tenants emotional harm and stress resulting in the payment of compensation.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for compensation for lost possessions and emotional harm and stress.
Given the findings I have made on all the evidence, documentation, and hearing from all the parties I do not consider it appropriate to waiver the 28 day notice period. The tenants sought a waiver due to their baby’s health issues and claim that the landlords moved back into the property immediately after the tenants moved out.
The landlords did not move back into the property until 6 August 2024.
I am dismissing all the tenants claims as I am not satisfied that they have proven their claims to the required standard.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond immediately to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenants to the landlords.
Because Dale Gray, Maria Gray has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962034 — Rent arrears at 9 Upland Road, Omiha, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962034 — Rent arrears at 9 Upland Road, Omiha, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions