Overlooked Law Requires Rentals to Be Free of Dampness

[Viking]

Overlooked Law Requires Rentals to Be Free of Dampness

Thursday, 16 April 2015, 10:13 am
Press Release: Otago University Overlooked Law Requires Rentals to Be Free of Dampness
A law, developed in the 1940s to protect people from living in unhealthy homes, could be used to require landlords to provide housing that is free from dampness, according to researchers from the University of Otago and Victoria University of Wellington.
The paper is the first to look at how cases of housing quality are decided on in the Tenancy Tribunal and is co-authored by Dr Mark Bennett from the Faculty of Law at Victoria University, and Dr Sarah Bierre and Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman from the Public Health Department at the University of Otago, Wellington.
The authors reviewed a year's worth of cases about housing quality from Wellington and Dunedin that had been published online by the Ministry of Justice.
In most cases where a tenant complained of damp or mouldy housing during a Tenancy Tribunal hearing, the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, which requires a home to be free from dampness, was overlooked, according to the research published this month in the New Zealand Universities Law Review.
Dr Bierre says every winter we hear stories and see media reports about people living in cold, damp and mouldy housing. “Tenants are able to ask for improvements to be made, but it was surprising to find that even if they make it to the Tenancy Tribunal the dampness laws available to protect tenants are often not used.”
Dr Bennett says the housing regulations could be used to require damp housing to have insulation, adequate heating, or ventilation installed if it is clear that is what is needed for a person to be able to live in a house that is free from dampness.

“These improvements are a cost to the landlord but they add value to the house and are things that homeowners regularly do when they move into a new home.”
Dr Bierre says there had been cases where the dampness standard had been applied.
“A renter living in a damp and mouldy house took a case to the Tenancy Tribunal and in the circumstances, the landlord was required to install ventilation fans and fix rising damp. In this case the judge found that a ‘renter must be able to use and live in a house in a normal way, without mould developing.’”
Dr Bierre says according to the law if this can't be done then it is the landlord's problem.
“In this case the landlord appealed to the District Court where the Tenancy Tribunal judgement was upheld.”
Dr Bennett says: “If a person is living in a damp, mouldy house there is a breach of the existing standards. It is important that landlords comply with the minimum standards we currently have until we can introduce a warrant of fitness for rental housing that clearly sets out what is required for a house to be habitable.”
Professor Philippa-Howden Chapman and her team have been working on a warrant of fitness for housing, which has been trialled in five cities around New Zealand.
The Housing Improvement Regulations date back to 1947 and comes under the Health Act 1956 which is required to be complied with as part of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
ENDS

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1504/S00064/overlooked-law-requires-rentals-to-be-free-of-dampness.htm

This is interesting. Can see a lot of landlords getting pinged by the do gooders at Tenancy.

[artemis]

Mr Twyford's Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill was drawn from the ballot but failed to get the required votes last month. Suspect it will be resubmitted in some form now there is a change in the makeup of the Parliament, though still needs to be drawn from the ballot again. There is a somewhat similar greens bill in the list, not drawn yet.

This paper is an attempt to get the issue back on the public agenda - fair enough.

Would the applicant tenant need to provide evidence to the TT that they did not cause the issues? By for example using an unflued gas heater, not opening windows and curtains, living in an overcrowded house increasing the water vapour in the air, not adequately heating the property perhaps due to inability to afford the electricity?

I totally agree there are instances where the landlord should be required to carry out maintenance if this is causing dampness - for example leaking roof or gutter, water collecting under the house.

IIRC there has been at least one case where the TT ruled that the tenant was responsible for cleaning down mould.

[Damap]

We put Healthaires into all our rentals, no more mould, weepy windows etc. Was a good solution that meant tenants can keep their windows closed and never have any fresh air but we don't get the maintenance issues.

[artemis]

The following is from the DBH website - noted that the tenant can be issued with a breach notice and taken to the TT. It's not just the landlord.

Mould, mildew and dampness -- There are many causes for dampness, mould and mildew in properties. Some of these may be due to the actions of tenants and caused by such things as not ventilating the property, using unflued gas heaters and drying clothes inside. Some of these may be the responsibility of the landlord and caused by such things as leaking pipes, blocked guttering and jammed windows. Some causes may not be the fault of either the landlord or the tenant and can be caused by such things as where the house is located and how much sunlight it gets.

Where there is a problem with mould, mildew and dampness, the tenant should try to clean the mould and mildew away and notify the landlord of the problem. If the tenant or landlord is causing the property to be damp, they can be requested to remedy the problem and may be served with a notice to remedy the breach if the problem is not resolved.

If the property is damp through no fault of the landlord or tenant, or the source of the dampness cannot be found, responsibility for resolving the problem becomes uncertain. In these circumstances, the landlord and tenant should negotiate an outcome that they are both happy with given the circumstances.

[Maccachic]

I find it hard to believe that the source of dampness couldn't be found.

[PC]

What about the over looked laws that require tenants to look after the property, not annoy the neighbours and pay the rent?
The huge majority of issues are around the breaking of these laws.
Any practical solutions to these real problems from the great law professors?

[Perry]

Any practical solutions to these real problems from the great law professors?

Chance would be a fine thing.

[Bob Kane]

That law is overlooked because we don't have damp houses these days. The building standards prevent new houses being damp.
If a house is damp then it's most likely because of some tenant action - failing to open windows in the bathroom/kitchen or failing to heat the house properly.
In those rare occasions when a landlord is renting a slum - holes in the roof or floor - then the tenant has the ''10 days to remedy fault" procedure available.

These do-gooders really are upset about landlords, aye?

[PhoenixDev]

That law is overlooked because we don't have damp houses these days. The building standards prevent new houses being damp.
If a house is damp then it's most likely because of some tenant action - failing to open windows in the bathroom/kitchen or failing to heat the house properly.
In those rare occasions when a landlord is renting a slum - holes in the roof or floor - then the tenant has the ''10 days to remedy fault" procedure available.

These do-gooders really are upset about landlords, aye?

There are plenty of damp houses around even those built after 1978 when insulation became compulsory in new builds.
water running underneath and insufficient insulation and not using moisture barriers is the main reasons why there is mould and stuff in homes, along with airflow( as you mention) etc etc..
I don't understand what you mean by do-gooders or why they would be upset with landlords?

[Perry]

You may see some of the disparities in the following comments:

Dr Bennett says: If a person is living in a damp, mouldy house there is a breach of the existing standards. It is important that landlords comply with the minimum standards we currently have until we can introduce a warrant of fitness for rental housing that clearly sets out what is required for a house to be habitable.”

Note that in the comment "If a person is living in a damp, mouldy house there is a breach of the existing standards," Dr Bennett arrogantly and presumptively attributes that breach of the existing standards to LLs as-of-wrong.

And that ". . . until we can introduce a warrant of fitness for rental housing that clearly sets out what is required for a house to be habitable."

Not for all housing, of course; and will clearly sets out detail the actions tenants must take to prevent dampness and mould? Of course it wont! Dr Bennett had the eye-patch over the good eye, that day.

And there is no mention of minimum standards for tenants' compliance with a common-sense living behaviour WoF. Never mind it being as important as LLs compliance!

Contrast all Dr Bennett's twaddle with Artemis' post: drawn from the DBH web site (paraphrased below)

There are many causes for dampness, mould and mildew in properties. Some of these may be due to the actions of tenants and caused by such things as not ventilating the property, using unflued gas heaters and drying clothes inside. If the tenant is causing the property to be damp, they can be requested to remedy the problem and may be served with a notice to remedy the breach if the problem is not resolved.

I don't understand what you mean by do-gooders or why they would be upset with landlords?

In addition to what I've described above, because of at least these two reasons:

Do-gooders did not want their houses subject to any sort of WoF;

Do-gooders like Dr Bennett arrogantly presume that there cannot be many causes for dampness. No. only one - and that's the the LL who must be the one and only cause.

[Viking]

Mould grows in warm humid conditions. Warm houses, humid weather. It ain't going away. The humid air condenses on cold surfaces or is absorbed by material items such as curtains. Curtains are good at abosrbing moisture. Moisture has dust and dirt particles in it and that is absorbed on the material. Along comes the sun and your supplied warmth and bingo your curtains go mouldy over time.
Bathrooms ditto.
Ensuites are great for making bedrooms the right conditions especially as you also sleep in there breathing warmth and humidity out into the room.

Old wooden houses have little mould compared to new ones.

[Perry]

But that can't be!! Everything
is the greedy LL's fault.

So saith Dr Bennett, anyway.

[Bob Kane]

I don't understand what you mean by do-gooders or why they would be upset with landlords?

The rental WOF proposal got slapped down and is dead.
The do-gooders then dug up this 1947 law to try and nail the landlords.
Unfortunately the cause of damp houses is 90% tenant actions. The 10% not tenant created cases can be remedied by existing provisions.
Why are these do-gooders trying to nail landlords?
Why don't they educate tenants to 1) keep the residence dry, and 2) save up and buy their own place and not be a tenant?

[artemis]

The rental WOF proposal got slapped down and is dead. The do-gooders then dug up this 1947 law to try and nail the landlords. Unfortunately the cause of damp houses is 90% tenant actions. The 10% not tenant created cases can be remedied by existing provisions. Why are these do-gooders trying to nail landlords? Why don't they educate tenants to 1) keep the residence dry, and 2) save up and buy their own place and not be a tenant?

Not sure the WoF proposal is dead. There are a lot of people invested in keeping it alive - not just political parties but local authorities, groups like CPAG, student associations, tenant groups. And university researchers. (The latter generally referred to by Whaleoil as 'troughers' though I couldn't possibly comment ...)

As to nailing landlords - easy target to which rules can be applied? Tenants - not so much. See also the below thread

http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?37310-Landlords-Cause-Rheumatic-Fever-Now

[Perry]

LLs easy targets? Sure thing. If there's ever a problem
with anything from the NZ economy to super bugs in
hospitals, it's the [greedy] LLs fault, no matter what.