In a recent ruling, a tribunal dismissed a tenant's claim for compensation against a landlord in a dispute involving mould issues at a rental property. The tenants had sought financial reimbursement for various expenses, including mould removal, cleaning, two weeks' rent for being unable to occupy the premises, and compensation for damaged goods.
The tribunal carefully evaluated the evidence presented by both parties and determined that the premises were not rendered uninhabitable by mould, leading to the dismissal of the tenants' application and the landlord's cross-application.
The dispute originated when the tenants, on October 12, 2022, applied for a payment order of $7,780.00 from the landlord, itemising their claim for various expenses related to the alleged mould issue. In response, the landlord lodged a cross-application asserting that the premises were not uninhabitable and that the termination notice issued by the tenants was invalid.
The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the premises were rendered uninhabitable by mould, the extent of any losses incurred by the tenants, and the validity of the termination notice.
The tenants provided an email to the landlord on August 5, 2022, highlighting the presence of mould and attached photographs depicting the issue. They claimed that the mould was initialy limited to the back bathroom but later spread to their child's bedroom. The tenants stated that after a cleaning company addressed the mould issue, they did not notice any further mould until early September. On September 2, 2022, they informed the landlord that additional mould was found between the floorboards in the lounge room, and they deemed the property uninhabitable.
The landlord countered the tenants' claims by presenting evidence from a mould cleaner who stated that the premises were clean and free of mould after the cleaning.
Another mould specialist's report indicated that recent heavy rainfall had increased moisture underneath the premises but found no signs of moisture issues in the child's bedroom. The report mentioned minor mould growth on a couch and cushions, which could be easily cleaned. The exit report conducted by the landlord made no mention of mould.
The tribunal rejected the tenants' additional claim regarding an increased rental amount due to water usage. The claim was deemed out of time and lacked merit since the water charges were not based on actual usage but were included in the rent to cover the landlord's costs.
Regarding the alleged mould issue, the tribunal determined that the evidence presented by the tenants did not demonstrate that the premises were uninhabitable. The photographs provided by the tenants showed only minor surface mould prior to the cleaning on August 17, and no substantial mould growth was observed thereafter until September 2. The mould found between a few floorboards was also deemed minor, considering the heavy rainfall during the period.
The tribunal accepted that the landlord took appropriate measures to address the mould issue as required under the tenancy agreement.
Furthermore, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the tenants' claim of damage to their goods caused by mould.
The evidence provided at the time of disposal, including text messages, photos, and emails, made no mention of damage to valuable goods. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the tenants were not entitled to compensation for damaged goods.
Regarding the termination notice, the tenants were found to have given only 13 days' notice instead of the required 14 days.
However, given that the property manager provided a positive reference for the tenants on the same day notice was given, the tribunal determined that the landlord had led the tenants to believe their notice was accepted due to the mould issue.
Consequently, the claim for lost rent due to insufficient notice was not allowed.
Based on the findings, the tribunal dismissed both.
View the full case here: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1864d87907f3faeae5f9b5fc
.png)
