What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243711?

The tribunal order states: Luxmanan Selvanesan must pay Paea Kirk $2,409.30 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5243711?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,382.30 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243711?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12027910-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243711?

The tribunal order states: Luxmanan Selvanesan must pay Paea Kirk $2,409.30 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5243711?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,382.30 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243711?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12027910-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Fea Street, Dalmore, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243711 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243711 — net $2,409.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for damage to possessions	$2,382.30	Compensation for damage to possessions
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,409.30
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,409.30

Order

Luxmanan Selvanesan must pay Paea Kirk $2,409.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The amount owing may be deducted by the tenant from the weekly rent due and payable for the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings.
The tenancy is for a fixed term from 17/12/2024 to 17/12/2025 at $580.00 rent per week.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations by renting out a basement and storage area subject to leakage and water ingress.
As a result of mould and rust damage to possessions stored in the damp areas the tenant claims compensation of $2,382.30 for replacement of a motorcycle jacket, industrial vacuum cleaner, toolbox and tools, trolley jack and a drill set.

Has the landlord breached his obligations?

The tenant submitted when possessions were stored in the storage area behind the downstairs garage, she was not aware the area leaked, although the landlord had told her that when it rained heavily the garage was prone to flooding.
Further the tenant suggested that the garage ceiling leaked from the deck above it.
The tenant’s partner gave evidence about discovering the leak in the storage area five days after they moved in, albeit that they had stored their possessions in the garage a fortnight prior.
The witness provided photographs of the possessions affected and gave evidence about the age of the chattels.
Further the witness confirmed that he had repaired leaks in the separate garage, which had been paid for by the landlord.
In response, the landlord submitted that he told the tenants at the time of the inspection that the basement garage was subject to seepage in extreme weather.
The landlord believed that as there was a separate double garage located away from the dwelling, the tenant should have stored possessions in that.
Although the landlord suggested that between hearings, he had sought advice from a plumber and the local council about the seepage issue, he provided no objective evidence about the cause of the problem.
The landlord’s son, who had managed the tenancy for the first three months gave evidence. He did not believe the tenant was told about the leak in the basement storage area but agreed that the basement itself was wet at the initial inspection.
The witness also confirmed that the tenant wanted the separate two bay garage to form part of the tenancy and an arrangement had been entered into for payment of extra rent, offset by work undertaken by the tenant’s partner.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), one of which is the 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 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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.
Breaching either 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).
The compliance date for this tenancy was 16 April 2025.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide and maintain the premises, in particular the basement garage and storage area, in a reasonable state of repair due to the know issue with seepage and flooding.
In addition, I consider the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standard for moisture and drainage by failing to adequately address the water ingress and dampness problems before the expiration of the compliance date for this tenancy.
There is no dispute that when the landlord showed the tenant the premises, there was water in the inspection pit in the basement garage and signs of dampness around the walls.
The landlord gave evidence that he knew about the moisture ingress problem and that in his words “the basement has leaked two or three times”.

Should compensation be awarded?

Although I consider the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the premises and breaching the moisture ingress and drainage standard, I have not awarded exemplary damages because the tenant only claimed compensation.
I consider the compensation claimed by the tenant is reasonable, despite the fact that the possessions were not new.
The tenant has suffered loss due to the actions of the landlord and now needs to replace the items destroyed. It is not unreasonable that the landlord to pay for the costs of replacement.
As the tenancy is ongoing, I have allowed the tenant the option of deducting the amount owing to her from the rent payable if she wishes to do so.
The renting of premises is a business and should be treated as such especially by a landlord.
Landlords have obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and need to be fully aware of their responsibilities to avoid situations, such as in this case arising.
Of particular concern to me in the evidence provided in this case was that the landlord completed the Healthy Homes Standards compliance certificate in the tenancy agreement without understanding all aspects of what he was signing, especially regarding the moisture and drainage standard.
As the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
The tenant did not ask for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243711 — net $2,409.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for damage to possessions	$2,382.30	Compensation for damage to possessions
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,409.30
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,409.30

Order

Luxmanan Selvanesan must pay Paea Kirk $2,409.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The amount owing may be deducted by the tenant from the weekly rent due and payable for the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings.
The tenancy is for a fixed term from 17/12/2024 to 17/12/2025 at $580.00 rent per week.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations by renting out a basement and storage area subject to leakage and water ingress.
As a result of mould and rust damage to possessions stored in the damp areas the tenant claims compensation of $2,382.30 for replacement of a motorcycle jacket, industrial vacuum cleaner, toolbox and tools, trolley jack and a drill set.

Has the landlord breached his obligations?

The tenant submitted when possessions were stored in the storage area behind the downstairs garage, she was not aware the area leaked, although the landlord had told her that when it rained heavily the garage was prone to flooding.
Further the tenant suggested that the garage ceiling leaked from the deck above it.
The tenant’s partner gave evidence about discovering the leak in the storage area five days after they moved in, albeit that they had stored their possessions in the garage a fortnight prior.
The witness provided photographs of the possessions affected and gave evidence about the age of the chattels.
Further the witness confirmed that he had repaired leaks in the separate garage, which had been paid for by the landlord.
In response, the landlord submitted that he told the tenants at the time of the inspection that the basement garage was subject to seepage in extreme weather.
The landlord believed that as there was a separate double garage located away from the dwelling, the tenant should have stored possessions in that.
Although the landlord suggested that between hearings, he had sought advice from a plumber and the local council about the seepage issue, he provided no objective evidence about the cause of the problem.
The landlord’s son, who had managed the tenancy for the first three months gave evidence. He did not believe the tenant was told about the leak in the basement storage area but agreed that the basement itself was wet at the initial inspection.
The witness also confirmed that the tenant wanted the separate two bay garage to form part of the tenancy and an arrangement had been entered into for payment of extra rent, offset by work undertaken by the tenant’s partner.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), one of which is the 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 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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.
Breaching either 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).
The compliance date for this tenancy was 16 April 2025.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide and maintain the premises, in particular the basement garage and storage area, in a reasonable state of repair due to the know issue with seepage and flooding.
In addition, I consider the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standard for moisture and drainage by failing to adequately address the water ingress and dampness problems before the expiration of the compliance date for this tenancy.
There is no dispute that when the landlord showed the tenant the premises, there was water in the inspection pit in the basement garage and signs of dampness around the walls.
The landlord gave evidence that he knew about the moisture ingress problem and that in his words “the basement has leaked two or three times”.

Should compensation be awarded?

Although I consider the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the premises and breaching the moisture ingress and drainage standard, I have not awarded exemplary damages because the tenant only claimed compensation.
I consider the compensation claimed by the tenant is reasonable, despite the fact that the possessions were not new.
The tenant has suffered loss due to the actions of the landlord and now needs to replace the items destroyed. It is not unreasonable that the landlord to pay for the costs of replacement.
As the tenancy is ongoing, I have allowed the tenant the option of deducting the amount owing to her from the rent payable if she wishes to do so.
The renting of premises is a business and should be treated as such especially by a landlord.
Landlords have obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and need to be fully aware of their responsibilities to avoid situations, such as in this case arising.
Of particular concern to me in the evidence provided in this case was that the landlord completed the Healthy Homes Standards compliance certificate in the tenancy agreement without understanding all aspects of what he was signing, especially regarding the moisture and drainage standard.
As the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
The tenant did not ask for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243711 — Property damage at 27 Fea Street, Dalmore, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243711 — Property damage at 27 Fea Street, Dalmore, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached his obligations?

Should compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached his obligations?

Should compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions