What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4439323 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, being for

How much money was awarded in case 4439323?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4439323?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4439323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9713856-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4439323 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, being for

How much money was awarded in case 4439323?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4439323?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4439323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9713856-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14A Hollyhock Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4439323 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4439323 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failing to maintain	$1,000.00	failing to maintain
Net award	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,000.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, being for exemplary damages for failing to maintain the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought for compensation of $50,000.00 for a fire that broke out in the bathroom and also sought exemplary damages for the lounge window not being maintained to a reasonable state.

Is the landlord liable for any fire damage?

The tenancy was from 17 th December 2021 and ended on 24 th August 2022.
At the entry inspection, the parties noted that the bathroom light cluster was only partially working.
The bathroom light cluster had a combination of lighting, heating lamps and extractor fan functions.
The lighting itself was not working and the tenant was told to use the heating lamps instead.
Furthermore, the electrical switches were set up such that the light had to be switched to on before the fan could turn on.
Although this was noted at the beginning of the tenancy, the bathroom light cluster continued working in that state without any other issues.
On 16 th August 2022, a fire broke out due to an apparent fault in the bathroom light cluster. Although there was no formal report, Fire and Emergency New Zealand had found that the light cluster was the source of the fire.
That fire led to the tenant losing a lot of personal items and causing post- traumatic stress to the tenant. The tenant also said that the tenant’s infant stopped growing for the first five weeks. At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that the tenant’s child, who also attend the hearing, was unaffected after that period.
The tenant argued that the fire was due to the landlord not providing or maintaining the light cluster in a reasonable state of repair.
However, other than the light itself not working, the heating lamps and the extractors fans worked until it caused a fire 8 months into the tenancy.
The bathroom light cluster had been working for at least another 2 years before this tenancy as well.
Neither parties noted any signs of electrical issues that could cause a sudden fire to start within the light cluster.
Although it was an unfortunate incident for both parties, I do not find that the fire had started due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the light cluster. I find it was an unforeseen accident.
The landlord is not liable. I dismiss this claim.

Did the landlord maintain the lounge window to a reasonable standard?

The tenant said that a lounge aluminium alloy window frame had been deformed leaving a 3-centimetre gap that caused draughts as well as being a break-in hazard. The landlord accepted that this was a pre-existing issue from the beginning of the tenancy.
Although the landlord had a Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”) report from 23 rd March 2021 that had noted that the lounge windows did not have any unreasonable gaps or draught issues, there is a very real possibility that the window lounge had become deformed after the completion of the HHS report.
On the entry inspection report, it was noted under the lounge window/handles/frame that “the window in the upper right corner of the living room falls off as a whole.”
The landlord explained that the owner was unwilling to have that window fixed due to the cost involved. The entire ranch slider had to be replaced for the one window to be fixed.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), failing to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I find that the landlord had intentionally refused to fix the lounge window despite it creating a visible gap allowing draughts and also being a potential break-in risk. The landlord had refused to this to save money. There is public interest in ensuring that the landlord maintains the premises to a reasonable state to ensure that there are no unreasonable gaps in the windows and to ensure that there are no unnecessary break-in risks. I find there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages in this case.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for failing to provide or maintain the lounge window in a reasonable state of repair.
For future tenancies, this premises should be reassessed for HHS as the gap in the window lounge would likely be too big to be HHS compliant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4439323 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failing to maintain	$1,000.00	failing to maintain
Net award	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,000.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, being for exemplary damages for failing to maintain the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought for compensation of $50,000.00 for a fire that broke out in the bathroom and also sought exemplary damages for the lounge window not being maintained to a reasonable state.

Is the landlord liable for any fire damage?

The tenancy was from 17 th December 2021 and ended on 24 th August 2022.
At the entry inspection, the parties noted that the bathroom light cluster was only partially working.
The bathroom light cluster had a combination of lighting, heating lamps and extractor fan functions.
The lighting itself was not working and the tenant was told to use the heating lamps instead.
Furthermore, the electrical switches were set up such that the light had to be switched to on before the fan could turn on.
Although this was noted at the beginning of the tenancy, the bathroom light cluster continued working in that state without any other issues.
On 16 th August 2022, a fire broke out due to an apparent fault in the bathroom light cluster. Although there was no formal report, Fire and Emergency New Zealand had found that the light cluster was the source of the fire.
That fire led to the tenant losing a lot of personal items and causing post- traumatic stress to the tenant. The tenant also said that the tenant’s infant stopped growing for the first five weeks. At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that the tenant’s child, who also attend the hearing, was unaffected after that period.
The tenant argued that the fire was due to the landlord not providing or maintaining the light cluster in a reasonable state of repair.
However, other than the light itself not working, the heating lamps and the extractors fans worked until it caused a fire 8 months into the tenancy.
The bathroom light cluster had been working for at least another 2 years before this tenancy as well.
Neither parties noted any signs of electrical issues that could cause a sudden fire to start within the light cluster.
Although it was an unfortunate incident for both parties, I do not find that the fire had started due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the light cluster. I find it was an unforeseen accident.
The landlord is not liable. I dismiss this claim.

Did the landlord maintain the lounge window to a reasonable standard?

The tenant said that a lounge aluminium alloy window frame had been deformed leaving a 3-centimetre gap that caused draughts as well as being a break-in hazard. The landlord accepted that this was a pre-existing issue from the beginning of the tenancy.
Although the landlord had a Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”) report from 23 rd March 2021 that had noted that the lounge windows did not have any unreasonable gaps or draught issues, there is a very real possibility that the window lounge had become deformed after the completion of the HHS report.
On the entry inspection report, it was noted under the lounge window/handles/frame that “the window in the upper right corner of the living room falls off as a whole.”
The landlord explained that the owner was unwilling to have that window fixed due to the cost involved. The entire ranch slider had to be replaced for the one window to be fixed.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), failing to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I find that the landlord had intentionally refused to fix the lounge window despite it creating a visible gap allowing draughts and also being a potential break-in risk. The landlord had refused to this to save money. There is public interest in ensuring that the landlord maintains the premises to a reasonable state to ensure that there are no unreasonable gaps in the windows and to ensure that there are no unnecessary break-in risks. I find there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages in this case.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for failing to provide or maintain the lounge window in a reasonable state of repair.
For future tenancies, this premises should be reassessed for HHS as the gap in the window lounge would likely be too big to be HHS compliant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4439323 — Exemplary damages at 14A Hollyhock Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4439323 — Exemplary damages at 14A Hollyhock Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable for any fire damage?

Did the landlord maintain the lounge window to a reasonable standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable for any fire damage?

Did the landlord maintain the lounge window to a reasonable standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions