What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5130271?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5130271?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5130271?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5130271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11719179-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5130271?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5130271?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5130271?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5130271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11719179-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 940 Colombo Street, St Albans, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5130271 — Mould & damp

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3159542-016) to Suranga Lakmal Ilankoon Ilankoon Mudiyanselage and Subhani Gayathree Abeywarnage immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Clarke represented the landlord. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter. Background
The tenancy started on 7 October 2023. It ended on 22 December 2024.
The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy because it considered that substantial repairs were required – the bathroom needed to be sanded, prepared, and painted. After they received the landlord’s termination notice, the tenants then gave 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation for what it alleges was careless damage by the tenants failing to ventilate the bathroom resulting in the need for the bathroom to be redecorated.
The tenants have applied for compensation of $600.00. When I asked them to explain their claim they said they wanted to be compensated for the cost of moving and for their loss of income and the time taken to move. Issues
The issues to be determined are these: •Has the landlord proved that the tenants caused damage to the bathroom and if so should the Tribunal award the repair cost of $2,196.50? •Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord for which they should be awarded compensation? Relevant legal considerations Liability for damage
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
So, even if the landlord were to prove a claim for careless damage, the amount the Tribunal could award is capped at $1,680.00, the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Has the landlord proved that the tenants caused damage to the bathroom and if so should the Tribunal award the repair cost?
Both parties gave evidence that there was some peeling of the paint on the bathroom ceiling at the start of the tenancy.
No issues were raised at the first two inspections, although the tenants say they raised the issue of mould on the bathroom ceiling on 26 April 2024. They say they followed the landlord’s instructions about how to clean the mould. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
In early May the landlord conducted an inspection and noted the peeling paint on the bathroom ceiling. She arranged for a painter to assess the bathroom, but the assessment did not go ahead because the tenants’ daughter was unwell. Nothing further happened until the inspection on 20 August 2024.
At the inspection, the tenants said that Ms Clarke became visibly upset at the state of the bathroom ceiling and acted harshly and unprofessionally. She followed that up with an email on 21 August 2024. She said: I know why you don’t want me to enter the property while you are not at home. It is obvious that you want the chance to throw open the bathroom window before I get there. If you are going to do that, PUT IT ON THE LATCH. I’m not stupid, and I don’t appreciate being lied to. The condition of the bathroom is SHOCKING. You complain that the bathroom fan is not working properly. You must OPEN THE WINDOW. FROM NOW ON, YOU MUST LEAVE A WINDOW OPEN IN THE BATHROOM 24 HOURS, that is all day every day...
The Tribunal will not comment on the tone of that communication; it speaks for itself.
It is the landlord’s case that the (significant) damage to the ceiling, walls and skirtings in the bathroom was caused by the tenants not ventilating the bathroom.
I heard evidence from one of the tenants who took a promise to tell the truth. She said she worked at Kmart and ventilated the bathroom between 1.30 and 4.30pm each day. As well she made sure the large bathroom window was opened whenever anyone had a shower. She said she was eventually told that the bathroom fan needed to be left running for 20 minutes after the bathroom had been used.
The landlord did not question the tenant’s evidence. I found her to be a credible and reliable witness.
There was some paint peeling on the bathroom ceiling at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said the premises were last redecorated two years before this tenancy started. These were the third tenants after the redecoration.
The landlord became aware of the progression of the paint peeling at the third inspection on 3 May 2024. She arranged for an assessment by a painter, but that did not take place. So, the landlord was on notice at that time that there was an issue.
I do not conclude that the extraordinary degree of paint peeling on nearly all the surfaces was due to the tenants not ventilating the bathroom. The more probable cause is that the bathroom was not well painted when the premises were redecorated in 2020 resulting in the paint beginning to peel before these tenants started their tenancy. That problem then continued to deteriorate and quickly – between the third and fourth inspections, so between 3 May and 20 August 2024.
From the photographic evidence it is simply not credible that the tenants’ actions caused the damage, bearing in mind their efforts to ventilate the bathroom when it was being used and at other times as the tenant described in evidence.
The landlord produced in evidence a statement from what the Tribunal presumes is the painter who quoted the work. He makes no reference to the peeling paint on the ceiling already being present at the start of the tenancy. He blames the damage on these tenants.
There is no suggestion that the tenants caused intentional damage. I do not find that they caused careless damage either. The likely cause was a paint job that was unfit for purpose in the bathroom, the evidence of the deterioration manifesting even before this tenancy started, then continuing, with a rapid deterioration over a period of a few months.
The landlord’s reaction to this happening was unfortunate. At the hearing she more than once referred to the tenants as ‘lovely people’. It was a tenancy that probably did not have to end with a more level-headed response to the failing paint work.
The landlord has failed to prove its claim for damage to the bathroom paintwork caused by the tenants. The application is dismissed. Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord for which they should be awarded compensation?
The tenants have not challenged the correctness of the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy. They could have remained in possession and made an application to the Tribunal to set aside the termination notice.
I was careful to clarify the tenants’ compensation claims.
They presented no evidence to prove the costs they sought. Because they gave notice to end the tenancy (as they were entitled to do) they cannot claim their moving costs because the costs followed their decision to end the tenancy.
Also, whether they incurred moving expenses when they did, or later when the tenancy would have ended, the loss is the same.
The tenants’ application cannot succeed and is dismissed. Result
For the reasons given, I dismiss both applications. Neither party has proved their claims against the other on the balance of probabilities.
The bond will be paid to the tenants in full. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. Because both applications are unsuccessful, the criteria for name suppression are not met and no orders are made – see section 95A RTA.

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3159542-016) to Suranga Lakmal Ilankoon Ilankoon Mudiyanselage and Subhani Gayathree Abeywarnage immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Clarke represented the landlord. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter. Background
The tenancy started on 7 October 2023. It ended on 22 December 2024.
The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy because it considered that substantial repairs were required – the bathroom needed to be sanded, prepared, and painted. After they received the landlord’s termination notice, the tenants then gave 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation for what it alleges was careless damage by the tenants failing to ventilate the bathroom resulting in the need for the bathroom to be redecorated.
The tenants have applied for compensation of $600.00. When I asked them to explain their claim they said they wanted to be compensated for the cost of moving and for their loss of income and the time taken to move. Issues
The issues to be determined are these: •Has the landlord proved that the tenants caused damage to the bathroom and if so should the Tribunal award the repair cost of $2,196.50? •Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord for which they should be awarded compensation? Relevant legal considerations Liability for damage
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
So, even if the landlord were to prove a claim for careless damage, the amount the Tribunal could award is capped at $1,680.00, the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Has the landlord proved that the tenants caused damage to the bathroom and if so should the Tribunal award the repair cost?
Both parties gave evidence that there was some peeling of the paint on the bathroom ceiling at the start of the tenancy.
No issues were raised at the first two inspections, although the tenants say they raised the issue of mould on the bathroom ceiling on 26 April 2024. They say they followed the landlord’s instructions about how to clean the mould. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
In early May the landlord conducted an inspection and noted the peeling paint on the bathroom ceiling. She arranged for a painter to assess the bathroom, but the assessment did not go ahead because the tenants’ daughter was unwell. Nothing further happened until the inspection on 20 August 2024.
At the inspection, the tenants said that Ms Clarke became visibly upset at the state of the bathroom ceiling and acted harshly and unprofessionally. She followed that up with an email on 21 August 2024. She said: I know why you don’t want me to enter the property while you are not at home. It is obvious that you want the chance to throw open the bathroom window before I get there. If you are going to do that, PUT IT ON THE LATCH. I’m not stupid, and I don’t appreciate being lied to. The condition of the bathroom is SHOCKING. You complain that the bathroom fan is not working properly. You must OPEN THE WINDOW. FROM NOW ON, YOU MUST LEAVE A WINDOW OPEN IN THE BATHROOM 24 HOURS, that is all day every day...
The Tribunal will not comment on the tone of that communication; it speaks for itself.
It is the landlord’s case that the (significant) damage to the ceiling, walls and skirtings in the bathroom was caused by the tenants not ventilating the bathroom.
I heard evidence from one of the tenants who took a promise to tell the truth. She said she worked at Kmart and ventilated the bathroom between 1.30 and 4.30pm each day. As well she made sure the large bathroom window was opened whenever anyone had a shower. She said she was eventually told that the bathroom fan needed to be left running for 20 minutes after the bathroom had been used.
The landlord did not question the tenant’s evidence. I found her to be a credible and reliable witness.
There was some paint peeling on the bathroom ceiling at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said the premises were last redecorated two years before this tenancy started. These were the third tenants after the redecoration.
The landlord became aware of the progression of the paint peeling at the third inspection on 3 May 2024. She arranged for an assessment by a painter, but that did not take place. So, the landlord was on notice at that time that there was an issue.
I do not conclude that the extraordinary degree of paint peeling on nearly all the surfaces was due to the tenants not ventilating the bathroom. The more probable cause is that the bathroom was not well painted when the premises were redecorated in 2020 resulting in the paint beginning to peel before these tenants started their tenancy. That problem then continued to deteriorate and quickly – between the third and fourth inspections, so between 3 May and 20 August 2024.
From the photographic evidence it is simply not credible that the tenants’ actions caused the damage, bearing in mind their efforts to ventilate the bathroom when it was being used and at other times as the tenant described in evidence.
The landlord produced in evidence a statement from what the Tribunal presumes is the painter who quoted the work. He makes no reference to the peeling paint on the ceiling already being present at the start of the tenancy. He blames the damage on these tenants.
There is no suggestion that the tenants caused intentional damage. I do not find that they caused careless damage either. The likely cause was a paint job that was unfit for purpose in the bathroom, the evidence of the deterioration manifesting even before this tenancy started, then continuing, with a rapid deterioration over a period of a few months.
The landlord’s reaction to this happening was unfortunate. At the hearing she more than once referred to the tenants as ‘lovely people’. It was a tenancy that probably did not have to end with a more level-headed response to the failing paint work.
The landlord has failed to prove its claim for damage to the bathroom paintwork caused by the tenants. The application is dismissed. Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord for which they should be awarded compensation?
The tenants have not challenged the correctness of the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy. They could have remained in possession and made an application to the Tribunal to set aside the termination notice.
I was careful to clarify the tenants’ compensation claims.
They presented no evidence to prove the costs they sought. Because they gave notice to end the tenancy (as they were entitled to do) they cannot claim their moving costs because the costs followed their decision to end the tenancy.
Also, whether they incurred moving expenses when they did, or later when the tenancy would have ended, the loss is the same.
The tenants’ application cannot succeed and is dismissed. Result
For the reasons given, I dismiss both applications. Neither party has proved their claims against the other on the balance of probabilities.
The bond will be paid to the tenants in full. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. Because both applications are unsuccessful, the criteria for name suppression are not met and no orders are made – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5130271 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 940 Colombo Street, St Albans,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5130271 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 940 Colombo Street, St Albans,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions