Morgan said the issues for the Tribunal were whether the premises were destroyed, or so seriously damaged (in whole or in part) as to be uninhabitable. If they were, the second issue was the degree to which rent should have been reduced.
The Residential Tenancies Act doesn’t define “uninhabitable” and there is no statutory definition or test for it. However, based on District Court case law, the Tribunal considers all such claims on an individual basis, taking into consideration the damage caused to the premises and the effect of it on the tenant.
In making a finding of uninhabitability, the Tribunal is directed to take a liberal approach.
Uninhabitability should be assessed in the light of prevailing conditions and expectations of the particular community at the particular time.
Morgan said: “In this instance the home was not flooded by the cyclone waters.
“There was a substantial amount of silt around the property, but there is no evidence of water entering the home or of damage preventing habitation.
“Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I was not satisfied that the rent should abate.”
At the end of a tenancy, tenants are required to leave premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord claimed Jordon was to blame for the carpet needing to be cleaned, but failed to provide sufficient proof, Morgan said.
“Photographs provided by the landlord didn’t clearly show alleged staining on the carpet.
“The tenant said that the carpet smelt following the cyclone and with the silt build-up around and under the house.”