What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4459043 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4459043?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4459043?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4459043?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8843331-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4459043 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4459043?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4459043?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4459043?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8843331-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

34A Claude Street, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4459043 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4459043 — net $270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$250.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$270.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4459043 — net $270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$250.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$270.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Quality Rental Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $30.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a cross application filed by the tenant, [The tenant/s] which was adjourned on 24 February 2023 due to the last-minute filing of an amended claim and evidence by the tenant.
The tenant sought compensation for a broken tabletop, and damages for breaches of the Healthy homes standards and for failure to comply with a 14 day notice.
The applicant is required to establish their claim with evidence. The standard of evidence is on the balance of probabilities, another way of saying this is that the applicant must prove that its more likely than not that their version of events occurred.

Is the landlord responsible for the damage to the tenants belongings?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant also sought compensation for damages to a tabletop.
The tenant stored marble tabletop that had belonged to his grandmother in the garage on the last few days of the tenancy. He had double wrapped it in bubble wrap and leaned it against the inside wall. The tabletop had a lot of sentimental value and the tenant believed that by storing it in the garage it would be less likely to be damaged in the process of moving out of the tenancy.
The garage was not modern, and the walls were constructed of unidentified sheets of material.
The tenant said that the tabletop had been in the garage for a day or so. When he went to retrieve it on 10 January 2022, he found that it had been knocked over and was broken. A photograph was produced of a hole in the garage wall where the tabletop had been leaning and a branch coming through the wall and into the garage.
The tenant believed that the branch had come off a tree located on the other side of the garage in a storm during the night.
The tenant sought compensation for the repair of the tabletop believing that the landlord had failed to maintain the tree, and that the garage walls were made from inferior products which failed to protect his items. The tenant thought the landlord should claim through their insurance for this damage.
There was a large tree on the left side of the single garage and an attached a carport on the right where the tenant parked his car.
The hole in the garage was on the carport side with the branch apparently coming from the tree on the left.
In support of this claim the tenant provided a video of the tree, claiming that it was not well looked after and photos of the hole in the garage and an area that had been previously patched. The argument given was that the walls must have been inferior to require a patch. There was no evidence provided as to when this was patched or what the walls were made of.
During the tenancy there were no 14-day notices or requests made to the landlord to maintain the tree. The garage walls appeared to be in reasonable condition considering the age and character of the premises.
The landlord raised the question if it was even possible, for a branch to fall over two garage roofs and then come back, under the roof, into the wall with such force as to make a hole in it and dislodge a heavy marble tabletop.
There are two parts to this claim, first that the landlord failed to maintain the tree and garage walls and secondly if it is established that because of this the table top was damaged, compensation is claimed.
I find that the tenant did not provide persuasive evidence proving that the landlord failed to maintain the garage walls and tree. The landlord was not informed of any concerns during the tenancy and the video provided did not establish that that maintenance was required.
The claim therefore fails at the first hurdle and is dismissed.
Damages to tenants’ personal items should be covered by their own insurance.
[The tenant/s] filed further claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant found that there was mould in the premises at the start of the tenancy and informed the landlord on 22 August 2022.The landlord issued a works order on the same day and instructed [cleaners] to attend to mould in the bathroom ceiling.
There was some delay in the cleaners gaining access to the premises, but the cleaning was completed.
An invoice dated 27 September 2022 was provided from the cleaners for bleaching the walls and ceilings in the bathroom as well as other cleaning that the tenant instructed them to complete.
It was not disputed that there was mould at the start of the tenancy. A landlord is required to provide the premise sin a reasonable state of cleanliness.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord is required to comply with the Residential Tenancies Act and it is important for the health and wellbeing of tenants that the premises are clean and free from mould. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $250.00.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant’s claim was for a heater located in the hallway that never worked and was found to not comply with the law relating to gas heaters. This heater was not listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. It was unable to be fixed and was not replaced.
It is acknowledged that the communication between the landlord and tenant about this heater could have been better however no breach of the HHS was established.
In this case I have determined that the landlord complied with the heating requirements of the HHS. A qualifying heater was provided in the living area.
This claim is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that the claim by the tenant that the garage leaked and had mould, was not a breach of the HHS. There was no evidence provided showing mould in the garage. The leak was attended to by the landlord and clear light replaced in the roof. An invoice from [plumbing company] dated 28 September 2022 was provided.
The tenant was unhappy with the garage repair as he intended to use the area as a playroom for his child and there was a water stain on the carpet that was replaced at the start of the tenancy. The tenant did not park his car in the garage.
HHS are standards that ensure tenants homes are warm and dry and that tenants do not live in conditions that negatively affect their health. A garage is part of a rental property but is defined as facilities, and are not for habitation.
Facilities in relation to a tenancy agreement are defined as, among other things as, any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles. These areas are not subject to the requirements of the HHS.
I find Quality Rental Management Limited has not committed an unlawful act and this claim is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord failed to comply with a 14 day notice dated 13 September 2022.The 14 day notice asked for the following items to be attended to; •Mould •Leaks in the house and garage •Oven and heater to be fixed •Stains in the carpet to be removed •A breach of quiet enjoyment
This decision has considered the mould issue. The tenant said that he was unhappy with the results from the cleaner and alerted the landlord to this on 26 September 2022.In this email the tenant refers to the cleaners having sprayed the ceiling with bleach and the tenant wrote that, ”..there is still a bit of mould there in some hard to reach places so I think that we might have to wait a day or two to see if the spray completely solved the problem...”
I do not find that this is communicating to the landlord that the tenant was unhappy with the cleaning and that there was still an issue with mould.
There was no evidence provide that there were any leaks in the house and the garage roof was repaired by the landlord. The tenant had a photo of the garage carpet with a stain on it. I do not find that this established that the garage was leaking.
The claim about the heater has been determined and no claims about the oven were raised at the hearing.
There was no photographic evidence of carpet stains provided. The landlord produced a copy of an invoice from [carpet cleaners] dated 16 January 2022. Due to lack of evidence this claim is dismissed.
The issue of quiet enjoyment was not raised at the hearing, and this is dismissed.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord attended to the matters raised in the 14-day notice and this claim is dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s] has somewhat succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Suppression is awarded because the tenant is somewhat successful with this claim. I have considered the application for name suppression for the previous decisions related to this tenancy. The tenant was not successful with his previous applications and the application for name suppression in relation to those is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4459043 — Exemplary damages at 34A Claude Street, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4459043 — Exemplary damages at 34A Claude Street, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord responsible for the damage to the tenants belongings?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord responsible for the damage to the tenants belongings?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions