What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5338183?

The tribunal order states: The claim by Rachel Aaltonen is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5338183?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $310.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338183?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13652718-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5338183?

The tribunal order states: The claim by Rachel Aaltonen is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5338183?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $310.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338183?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13652718-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 3, 29 Ebdentown Street, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338183 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338183 — net $338.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement – unintended early investment	$310.00	Carpet replacement – unintended early investment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$338.00
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$338.00

Order

The claim by Rachel Aaltonen is dismissed.
Rachel Aaltonen is to pay Alan Westbury and Gay Westbury, as Trustees of The A V Westbury Family Trust, $338.00 from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (3058700-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Alan Westbury and Gay Westbury as Trustees of The A V Westbury Family Trust: $338.00 Rachel Aaltonen: $1,062.00
The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant’s claims
The tenant 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). Rachel Aaltonen considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS the moisture ingress and ventilation standards.
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 tenancy began on 22 December 2019. It was not renewed or extended but rolled over to a periodic tenancy in December 2020. The tenancy ended on 31 August 2025. The landlord was required to comply with HHS for this property by 1 July 2025.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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.
The tenant provided a report which indicated that the property failed HHS because there was no ground moisture barrier or under floor insulation. The landlord did not dispute that there was no moisture barrier or under floor insulation however provided a report from Sustainability Trust. It determined that a HHS exemption applied because the underfloor is not accessible for the installation of a moisture barrier and insulation.
The Sustainability Trust is qualified to provide a HHS assessment. I have no doubt that if it was possible for the barrier and insulation to be installed, they would have required the owner to install a barrier and insulation.
The landlord explained that the only access to the underfloor is a small hatchway located inside a wardrobe in the property. The ability to take the material through that small hole in the floor would be the reason why the property meets the exception provided in the HHS Regulations.
The tenant submitted that the absence of a moisture barrier caused the carpet to become mouldy and require replacement. I shall address this below when considering the landlord’s claim.
The tenant submitted that the bathroom mould came about because the extractor fan breached HHS. In the report provided by the tenant the contractor gave an opinion about the efficiency of the extraction fans in the bathroom and kitchen but did not provide any calculations to show that they failed to meet HHS. An opinion is insufficient to prove a claim. Claims are proved by calculations showing the level of extraction for the area of the premises.
I have considered whether the mould in the bathroom proves that the extractor fan was insufficient.
Mould can develop for various reasons. Mould can grow because moisture enters a building due to a building defect/s. It can also be the result of normal living in a property where condensation forms. That moisture becomes mouldy and requires cleaning. Bathrooms are likely places for mould to grow because of the condensation from showering. It can grow whether an extractor fan meets HHS or not. Mould in bathrooms is not an indication that an extractor fan is not compliant. It is the responsibility of the tenant to regularly clean the mould that grows in bathrooms from normal living.
After the tenancy ended the landlord cleaned the mould. The landlord stated that the new tenant has not reported a mould problem (or damp carpet).
In conclusion, there is insufficient information to prove that the premises failed to meet HHS regarding a moisture barrier, under floor insulation or ventilation. For that reason, the tenant’s claim regarding HHS is dismissed. The Landlord’s claim
The landlord has claimed compensation for damage to the carpet.
The landlord’s claim is that the carpet was damaged by cat urine and the tenant’s double bed placed directly on the carpet. The landlord received a report from the carpet supplier indicating that before new carpet could be laid the floor needed to be treated for cat urine. The tenant kept cats. She provided a cat rescue service.
The landlord’s insurance covered the cost to treat the floor and replace the carpet, but the landlord was required to pay three $650.00 insurance excesses. The landlord has claimed $1,950.00 from the tenant.
The tenant believes that the carpet was damaged because there was no moisture barrier. She said that in the bedroom where she kept the cats there was a protective covering over the carpet. She said her bed was on low blocks to keep the cats from crawling under it.
I have considered the evidence. It does not support the tenant’s position. The damage is localized patches which is not consistent with general dampness. The underfloor photos show no indication of moisture on the underside of the floorboards. The cat urine that had penetrated through to the floor boards and was consistent with patches on the carpet. The indentation on the carpet shows a bed directly on the carpet that could trap moisture.
The balance of probability is that the carpet damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy.
The landlord has claimed exemplary damages for this failure by the tenant. Exemplary damages may be ordered where a party commits an unlawful act.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what conduct is an unlawful act. Although section 40(20(a) RTA provides that a tenant shall not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises, the RTA does not state that a breach of that obligation is an unlawful act. Therefore, exemplary damages cannot be ordered for the damaged carpet.

What compensation may be ordered?

Where there is damage the landlord is entitled to be put in the same position as the landlord would have been if the damage gad not occurred. In the present case the carpet was about 12 years old. But the landlord did not replace the carpet with 12 year old carpet. To order the tenant to pay for replacement new carpet would place the landlord in a better position than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
Despite the carpet being 12 years old, the general condition of the carpet shows it had not reached the end of its life. It would not need to be replaced for the next tenancy if not damaged by the tenant. Therefore the $1,950.00 that the landlord had to pay for new carpet was an unintended early investment in carpet.
The unintended early investment loss to the landlord is calculated as being the interest on $1,950.00 at 3% for 5 years, which is $310.00. That is the amount ordered to be paid. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Name suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has not substantially succeeded with her claims and therefore name suppression is not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338183 — net $338.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement – unintended early investment	$310.00	Carpet replacement – unintended early investment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$338.00
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$338.00

Order

The claim by Rachel Aaltonen is dismissed.
Rachel Aaltonen is to pay Alan Westbury and Gay Westbury, as Trustees of The A V Westbury Family Trust, $338.00 from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (3058700-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Alan Westbury and Gay Westbury as Trustees of The A V Westbury Family Trust: $338.00 Rachel Aaltonen: $1,062.00
The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant’s claims
The tenant 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). Rachel Aaltonen considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS the moisture ingress and ventilation standards.
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 tenancy began on 22 December 2019. It was not renewed or extended but rolled over to a periodic tenancy in December 2020. The tenancy ended on 31 August 2025. The landlord was required to comply with HHS for this property by 1 July 2025.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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.
The tenant provided a report which indicated that the property failed HHS because there was no ground moisture barrier or under floor insulation. The landlord did not dispute that there was no moisture barrier or under floor insulation however provided a report from Sustainability Trust. It determined that a HHS exemption applied because the underfloor is not accessible for the installation of a moisture barrier and insulation.
The Sustainability Trust is qualified to provide a HHS assessment. I have no doubt that if it was possible for the barrier and insulation to be installed, they would have required the owner to install a barrier and insulation.
The landlord explained that the only access to the underfloor is a small hatchway located inside a wardrobe in the property. The ability to take the material through that small hole in the floor would be the reason why the property meets the exception provided in the HHS Regulations.
The tenant submitted that the absence of a moisture barrier caused the carpet to become mouldy and require replacement. I shall address this below when considering the landlord’s claim.
The tenant submitted that the bathroom mould came about because the extractor fan breached HHS. In the report provided by the tenant the contractor gave an opinion about the efficiency of the extraction fans in the bathroom and kitchen but did not provide any calculations to show that they failed to meet HHS. An opinion is insufficient to prove a claim. Claims are proved by calculations showing the level of extraction for the area of the premises.
I have considered whether the mould in the bathroom proves that the extractor fan was insufficient.
Mould can develop for various reasons. Mould can grow because moisture enters a building due to a building defect/s. It can also be the result of normal living in a property where condensation forms. That moisture becomes mouldy and requires cleaning. Bathrooms are likely places for mould to grow because of the condensation from showering. It can grow whether an extractor fan meets HHS or not. Mould in bathrooms is not an indication that an extractor fan is not compliant. It is the responsibility of the tenant to regularly clean the mould that grows in bathrooms from normal living.
After the tenancy ended the landlord cleaned the mould. The landlord stated that the new tenant has not reported a mould problem (or damp carpet).
In conclusion, there is insufficient information to prove that the premises failed to meet HHS regarding a moisture barrier, under floor insulation or ventilation. For that reason, the tenant’s claim regarding HHS is dismissed. The Landlord’s claim
The landlord has claimed compensation for damage to the carpet.
The landlord’s claim is that the carpet was damaged by cat urine and the tenant’s double bed placed directly on the carpet. The landlord received a report from the carpet supplier indicating that before new carpet could be laid the floor needed to be treated for cat urine. The tenant kept cats. She provided a cat rescue service.
The landlord’s insurance covered the cost to treat the floor and replace the carpet, but the landlord was required to pay three $650.00 insurance excesses. The landlord has claimed $1,950.00 from the tenant.
The tenant believes that the carpet was damaged because there was no moisture barrier. She said that in the bedroom where she kept the cats there was a protective covering over the carpet. She said her bed was on low blocks to keep the cats from crawling under it.
I have considered the evidence. It does not support the tenant’s position. The damage is localized patches which is not consistent with general dampness. The underfloor photos show no indication of moisture on the underside of the floorboards. The cat urine that had penetrated through to the floor boards and was consistent with patches on the carpet. The indentation on the carpet shows a bed directly on the carpet that could trap moisture.
The balance of probability is that the carpet damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy.
The landlord has claimed exemplary damages for this failure by the tenant. Exemplary damages may be ordered where a party commits an unlawful act.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what conduct is an unlawful act. Although section 40(20(a) RTA provides that a tenant shall not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises, the RTA does not state that a breach of that obligation is an unlawful act. Therefore, exemplary damages cannot be ordered for the damaged carpet.

What compensation may be ordered?

Where there is damage the landlord is entitled to be put in the same position as the landlord would have been if the damage gad not occurred. In the present case the carpet was about 12 years old. But the landlord did not replace the carpet with 12 year old carpet. To order the tenant to pay for replacement new carpet would place the landlord in a better position than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
Despite the carpet being 12 years old, the general condition of the carpet shows it had not reached the end of its life. It would not need to be replaced for the next tenancy if not damaged by the tenant. Therefore the $1,950.00 that the landlord had to pay for new carpet was an unintended early investment in carpet.
The unintended early investment loss to the landlord is calculated as being the interest on $1,950.00 at 3% for 5 years, which is $310.00. That is the amount ordered to be paid. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Name suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has not substantially succeeded with her claims and therefore name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338183 — Property damage at Unit 3, 29 Ebdentown Street, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338183 — Property damage at Unit 3, 29 Ebdentown Street, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What compensation may be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What compensation may be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions