It rained a lot in February, leaving many people reaching for their mops, buckets and mould remover sprays.

The majority of people doing so would have been tenants, who official statistics show are more likely to live in damp houses than owner-occupiers are.

February saw a flurry of damp-related cases taken to the Tenancy Tribunal, with unhappy landlords, and unhappy tenants both seeking remedies for damp-related problems.

Tribunal adjudicators regularly hear cases of landlords and tenants failing each other.

READ MORE:

* Landlords v tenants: How to live in a house

* Is your home oozing damp?

* Study of 450 Wellington children finds mouldy, leaky homes

DUAL OBLIGATION

"Preventing mould in a house is a dual obligation of the tenant and landlord," noted a tribunal adjudicator in a Rotorua case in February. "The tenant must live in a way that avoids mould developing by heating and ventilating the house, and wiping away daily condensation that arises from ordinary living; and a landlord must provide a house that is not prone to mould, fix any issue creating mould; and provide the means to heat and ventilate it."

Neither can simply assert the other is at fault, and expect to win their case before the tribunal, which does not have the power to forbid a landlord to re-let a substandard home, or ban landlords who wantonly let substandard properties.

In the Rotorua case, the landlord- through a property manager- used a 90-day notice to remove an immigrant couple with a three-year-old child following a property inspection which found damage including plaster and wallpaper damaged "due to ongoing moisture build up and dampness in the house brought about by the tenant's failure to ventilate the premises."

The landlord provided the tribunal with no independent evidence of the cause of the damage.

The tenants however got DVS, the home ventilation specialists in, and it concluded the dampness came from the ground under the house, the adjudicator heard.

DVS' evidence swung the case for the tenants.

NO EXCUSES

Sometimes landlords simply do not understand their legal duties, and justify renting out a substandard property on pure economics.

JOHN HAWKINS/STUFF Both tenants and landlords have obligations to fight damp in rental homes.

In another February case, this time from Greymouth, the adjudicator found: "There is no doubt that the premises were dilapidated. The weatherboards are rotten and split in places. The outside cladding includes sheets of corrugated iron that are rusted. There are places where natural light can be seen from inside the premises due to gaps in the cladding and the absence of internal lining."

There was a rear deck supported by decayed bearers, broken windows, no window flashings and vegetation growing into the building.

"Many (in) New Zealand live in houses which are in a similar condition," the adjudicator commented.

But, because the home was a rental property, the landlord, had obligations for it to be let in a reasonable condition under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.

The referee said the landlord explained to the tribunal that "the economics of buying the house to let means that she has a limited amount of money to spend of maintaining and improving the house."

And, the adjudicator found: "On the other side is (the tenant) who said that she was grateful to have the house to live in. Affordable housing is scarce and if she was not able to rent this house, the likelihood was that she would be homeless."

"This exemplifies a wider social problem," he said.

The tenant and her child had been there since 2015, but in 2017 a social worker saw the state of the house, setting in train a claim for compensation.

"The premises would have been cold and damp, particularly in the winter months and difficult to heat. It is likely that their health suffered as a result of that," the adjudicator said.

The state of the house gave the tenant the legal right to end the tenancy. The tribunal awarded her $5000, with and $1000 of exemplary damages, adding up to the equivalent of $40 for each week of her tenancy.

BE PROFESSIONAL

"Not being able to afford to repair something is not an excuse," said Andrew King, executive director of the Property Investors' Federation.

Landlords with properties that did not meet minimum legal standards needed to fix them, even if it meant borrowing the money to do so.

DAVID WHITE/STUFF Andrew King of the NZ Property Investors Federation.

But, he said: "Unfortunately, if you do spend more money, and upgrade the property, the rent will go up."

Professional landlords budgeted so they had the money to make repairs and maintain their homes, King said.

LANDLORD NEGLECT

Another landlord, this time in Auckland, who "chose to do nothing" about the state of one rental was hit with a penalty that added up to $75 a week over the period the tenant lived in the house.

The adjudicator also awarded exemplary damages of $2000 against the landlord.

"In my view, there was a blatant disregard by the landlord for the condition of the premises and (the tenant's) right to live in premises in a reasonable state of repair and free from damp," the adjudicator said. "It is clear (the landlord) had no intention of carrying out the necessary repairs, and in this regard."

"The fence was falling down and did eventually fall in to the property during a storm. The windows in the premises were in danger of breaking or falling out as there was no putty. This made the house drafty and cold. There was rot throughout the house – in the windows and doors, the shower box, and the walls. The toilet leaked and the floor behind it was rotten. There was mould throughout the house."

"The oven handle came off and the landlord replaced it with one screw. Unsurprisingly it very soon came off again. The oven door would not close unless a chair was propped up against it. The oven was so close to the wall that when the front right hand element was used it would singe the wall."

The rent the landlord had been getting was $520 a week.

Comments have been closed.