What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4541889 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 4541889?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $4,550.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541889?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9405817-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4541889 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 4541889?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $4,550.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541889?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9405817-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

100 Robinson Road, Whangarei Heads, RD 4, Whangarei Tenancy Tribunal Case 4541889 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4541889 — net $12,970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
t Exemplary damages – failure to provide an insulation statement, failure to provide healthy homes information in the te	$750.00	t Exemplary damages – failure to provide an insulation statement, failure to provide healthy homes information in the te
Exemplary damages – failure to comply with the healthy homes standards	$3,000.00	24. In this instance: a.
Exemplary damages – failure to comply with requirements in respect of smoke alarms	$800.00	43. Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $3,000.00.
Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment	$750.00	Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation – loss of use of loft accommodation	$2,500.00	Compensation – loss of use of loft accommodation
Compensation – cleaning and gardening at beginning of tenancy	$600.00	103. On the evidence available to me I will award $600.00, based on 20 hours of cleaning and gardening work at $30 per hour.
Compensation – maintenance issues	$4,550.00	Compensation – maintenance issues
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	203. Having regard to those factors in this instance, I will award total compensation of $4,550.00, which equates to six weeks’ rent.
Net award	$12,970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,970.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4541889 — net $12,970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
t Exemplary damages – failure to provide an insulation statement, failure to provide healthy homes information in the te	$750.00	t Exemplary damages – failure to provide an insulation statement, failure to provide healthy homes information in the te
Exemplary damages – failure to comply with the healthy homes standards	$3,000.00	24. In this instance: a.
Exemplary damages – failure to comply with requirements in respect of smoke alarms	$800.00	43. Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $3,000.00.
Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment	$750.00	Compensation – breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation – loss of use of loft accommodation	$2,500.00	Compensation – loss of use of loft accommodation
Compensation – cleaning and gardening at beginning of tenancy	$600.00	103. On the evidence available to me I will award $600.00, based on 20 hours of cleaning and gardening work at $30 per hour.
Compensation – maintenance issues	$4,550.00	Compensation – maintenance issues
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	203. Having regard to those factors in this instance, I will award total compensation of $4,550.00, which equates to six weeks’ rent.
Net award	$12,970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,970.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

The tenanted premises is comprised of a 2-bedroom house with a separate garage (which also contains the laundry and a loft accommodation space), and a separate workshop.
The dwellings are surrounded by grazing land and tunnel houses, which are not part of the tenanted premises.
[The tenant/s] partner [tenant’s partner] viewed the property on 6 April 2022 with the (then) property manager Ms Engelbrecht of Eves Whangarei
Cleaning and repair work was underway at that time. The property had previously been the location of a large-scale cannabis operation. [The tenant/s] submitted that there was still a strong smell of cannabis when she viewed the property.
The tenancy began on 27 May 2022.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant’s partner] are the named tenants in the tenancy agreement. [The tenant’s partner]’s teenage son is noted as an ‘additional resident’. Although it is not noted in the tenancy agreement, it was understood that [The tenant/s] and [The tenant’s partner] had a flatmate who would live in the loft accommodation.
A friend of the landlord, Terry, ran stock on the land surrounding the tenanted premises. There was an undefined and apparently informal arrangement between Terry and the owner that Terry would take care of minor maintenance issues and act as a liaison for tradespeople. The lack of clarity about Terry’s role, and some aspects of Terry’s behaviour, was a source of difficulty for the tenants. This issue is discussed in more detail below.
In August 2022, JS Property Management Ltd (Mr Peters) replaced Eves Whangarei as property managers.
The tenants’ flatmate left in February 2023.
The tenants’ application raises issues under the following headings: a. Failure to provide requisite information in the tenancy agreement. b. Failure to meet healthy homes obligations in respect of heating, ventilation, c. Failure to provide smoke alarms. d. Breach of quiet enjoyment. e. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. f. Loss of rental income from the loft accommodation due to water leak (and other issues). g. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 18 August 2023. All parties attended the hearing. Information in the tenancy agreement
Landlords have a duty to provide a written tenancy agreement 1 and to include certain information in the tenancy agreement 2 .
I was provided with a copy of the written tenancy agreement. It is on a standard form prepared by Tenancy Practice Services Ltd.
The claim alleges that the landlord failed to include the following information in the tenancy agreement: a. An insurance statement; and b. A complete healthy homes statement; and c. A complete insulation statement.
Mr Peters accepted that Eves Whangarei did not provide an insurance statement to the tenants. He provided that document to the tenants after he took over management of the property in August 2022.
The tenancy agreement does include a healthy homes statement.
The statement states (incorrectly) that the healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy is 30 July 2022.
The statement does not give any information about the heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, or draught stopping measures at the premises. In respect of all of those healthy homes obligations, the landlord has ticked a box stating that the requisite information “does not exist yet or cannot be provided by the landlord” and that compliance with the standard “is not required until the healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy”.
The fact that the healthy homes compliance date was in the future does not remove the landlord’s obligation to provide information in the tenancy agreement about heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping.
There is a limited exception in terms of the insulation statement, if: Despite making all reasonable efforts to do so, the landlord has not been able to obtain some or all of the information [about insulation] in respect of a particular location (for example, above a ceiling, under a floor, or in a wall) 3 1 Section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 13A RTA 3 Section 13A(1B) RTA
No such exceptions apply in respect of the duty to provide information about heating, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, or draught stopping 4 .
Failure to provide an insurance statement, a healthy homes statement, or an insulation statement are unlawful acts 5 .
The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. In considering an appropriate award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest 6 .
In this instance: a. The landlord failed to provide an insurance statement in the tenancy agreement. b. The landlord failed to provide healthy homes information as required by the Regulations. c. The landlord failed to provide insulation information as required, and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took reasonable steps to obtain information about insulation. d. It seems that the landlord understood, incorrectly, that because the healthy homes compliance date was in the future, they were not obliged to provide information about the condition of the premises (in terms of heating, ventilation, etc) at the commencement of the tenancy. e. The duty to provide healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement is separate from and additional to the duty to meet the healthy homes obligations. f. The three breaches are three separate unlawful acts, and exemplary damages of up to $750.00 could apply to each. g. In considering an appropriate award of exemplary damages, I have had regard to the following factors: i. The tenants were entitled to know this healthy homes information. ii. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords provide complete and accurate information to tenants. 4 Sections 33-30 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 set out what information the landlord must provide 5 Section 13A(1F)(a) RTA 6 Section 109 RTA iii. Although there were technically three breaches, it is appropriate to make a total award of exemplary damages that is not disproportionate or unreasonably punitive, having regard to the relatively technical nature of the breaches and the relatively minor impact on the tenants. h. Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $750.00. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The landlord obtained a healthy homes assessment report in June 2022.
I was provided with a copy of the report, which was prepared by [report provider].
The report identifies that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards in respect of: a. Drainage: There was an overflowing downpipe near the entrance to the house. [Report provider] made this finding on the basis of information that [The tenant/s] gave to them – it was not raining on the day that the inspection took place so the inspector could not verify this. b. Ventilation: The report states that there are no extraction fans in the kitchen and bathroom area of the loft. c. Draught stopping: The report notes “multiple gaps exceeding 3mm between the windows and the window frames”. d. Insulation. There was no underfloor insulation in the main dwelling or in the loft.
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 25 August 2022 7 .
The gaps between the windows and window frames were remedied on 12 December 2022.
The overflowing downpipe was remedied on 21 April 2023.
Underfloor insulation was installed on 11 October 2022.
Mr Peters submitted that an exemption applies in respect of ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen in the loft because: a. There is no stove in the loft; and b. It is not practicable to install mechanical ventilation in the bathroom, and there is an adequate window. 7 90 days from the date of commencement of the tenancy, per section 2, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019
Mr Peters provided a copy of an email from [Electrician] confirming that it is not practicable to install a ventilation fan in the bathroom of the loft “due to no ceiling cavity and the construction of the building”.
The healthy homes Regulations do not include a specific exemption for kitchens that do not have a stove.
The set-up of the property is such that the tenants reasonably understood that the loft was a self-contained area.
The loft has a kitchen bench with a sink.
The reason for the requirement for ventilation in the kitchen is to mitigate the effect of moisture introduced into the air by cooking. This is not predicated on the presence of a stove. The same problem exists if a tenant cooks on an electric element or a small gas cooker.
Therefore, in terms of this issue, my finding is that: a. There is a kitchen in the loft. b. There is no proven exemption that applies. It is possible that, as with the bathroom extraction fan, it is not practicable to install mechanical ventilation in the kitchen because of the construction of the building. However, I have no evidence on that point. c. The loft is required to have mechanical ventilation in the kitchen. d. I note that [report provider] issued an “amended report” and an (undated) Certificate of Compliance, stating that the property complies with “[redacted] Property Compliance requirements of meeting the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019”. Under the heading ‘ventilation’, the amended report states: “This section of the report complies as per the original report”. That statement is not accurate. The original report identified that the ventilation in the kitchen was non-compliant, as discussed above.
In summary, the landlord did not meet healthy homes standards by the compliance date in respect of drainage, ventilation, draught stopping, and insulation.
Failure to meet the healthy homes obligations is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
The usual approach of the Tribunal with exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum, and to then consider aggravating and mitigating factors 8 .
In this instance: 8 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 a. The landlord has chosen to enter into a tenancy before obtaining a healthy homes assessment. b. The landlord assumed a risk that the property may not comply, and that if remedial work was necessary to bring the property to compliance it may not be achieved within the 90-day ‘grace period’. c. There is very little information about any active steps to address the issues identified in the healthy homes report until JS Property Management took over from Eves Whangarei in August 2022. d. There are multiple failures to comply, and, individually and cumulatively, they had an impact upon the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises. e. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords provide warm and healthy homes.
Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $3,000.00. Smoke alarms
At the beginning of the tenancy there was one smoke alarm in the hallway of the main dwelling.
The healthy homes assessment report notes the alarm in the hallway and comments: the smoke alarm on the opposite wall [is] missing. We would recommend installing a new photoelectric alarm here to ensure sufficient coverage as the ceilings are high and there is a hallway door frame separating bedrooms
The report notes that there are no smoke alarms in the loft.
The report recommends “the installation of two new photoelectric smoke alarms”.
[The tenant/s] submitted that they were given smoke alarms by Terry on 20 June 2022.
Since July 2016, landlords have had a duty to ensure that there are qualifying smoke alarms 9 in the sleeping space or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space in all tenanted premises.
At the commencement of this tenancy, there was no smoke alarm in the sleeping space in the loft.
It is not clear whether the single smoke alarm in the hallway of the main house was sufficient to meet the legal requirement of having an alarm within 3m of every sleeping space. However, the fact that there was an (empty) bracket for 9 As defined in section 7 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 another smoke alarm in that area, and that the [report provider] report recommends that another alarm be fitted in that area, suggests that it did not meet the legal requirement.
Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms is an unlawful act.
This obligation is separate from, and additional to, the duty to meet the healthy homes standards.
Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
In this instance: a. As noted above, the obligation to have smoke alarms in has been in effect since July 2016. I have no specific information about why the premises did not meet the requirements for smoke alarms at the beginning of the tenancy. Mr Peters suggested that there may have been a mis- communication with Terry. b. For a relatively brief period of time, the loft area was non-compliant, and the main dwelling was arguably non-compliant.
Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $800.00. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy 10 .
A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act 11 . Exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 can apply.
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. Tradespeople came to the property frequently and without notice. b. Terry’s behaviour caused difficulties in that: i. It was unclear in what capacity Terry was acting. ii. His manner was sometimes rude and dismissive of the tenants’ concerns. iii. Because he was working on the land surrounding the property, and he had some apparent authority to ‘look after the property’, he was intrusive without being helpful.
I acknowledge the concerns that [The tenant/s] raised under these headings. 10 Section 38(2) RTA 11 Section 38(3) RTA
However, the difficulty with these more general types of issues is that they are somewhat subjective and difficult to evidence.
The Tribunal must take an objective approach. The question is not whether [The tenant/s] felt harassed. The question is whether there is evidence of proven behaviour that amounts to harassment.
In terms of these issues, there is not sufficient evidence to establish actions by or on behalf of the landlord that amount to an unreasonable interference with the tenants’ peace comfort and privacy.
[The tenant/s] also raised another, more specific, issue to do with video recording of herself and of the property. [The tenant/s] submitted that: a. A tradesman who was at the property to investigate the damaged floor in the loft took a video recording of the area and captured her in the recording, without seeking her consent. b. Ms Chang also came to the property to view the damaged floor. Ms Chang arrived at the property with another person, who was video recording Ms Chang and the property. c. There was a prior incident when the healthy homes assessor allegedly took a photograph of [The tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] objected to this, and she raised the issue with Ms Engelbrecht in June 2022.
Questions around tenant’s privacy in the context of photographs or video recordings taken by landlords during property inspections, have come before the Tribunal before. The established principles 12 are: a. The landlord may take photographs and video recordings if there is a legitimate purpose for doing so (for instance, to record the condition of the premises during an inspection). b. The landlord must avoid, where possible, taking photographs of the tenant’s personal property. c. The photographs and video should not be used for any other purpose.
Applying these principles to the incidents that [The tenant/s] raised: a. I have little information about the incident where [The tenant/s] was allegedly video recorded by a tradesman. It may have been appropriate for the tradesman to make a video recording of the damage to the floor. It is difficult to imagine in what circumstances it could be appropriate for a tradesman to record a tenant, but I do not know whether this was an intentional action. 12 Trevor Hurley Real Estate Ltd v Campen [2014] NZTT 204, Douglas v Moving Realty Ltd [2018] NZTT Whangarei 4128900 Although I acknowledge [The tenant/s] legitimate concerns about this incident, I will not make an award of damages on the grounds that: i. I have limited information about the circumstances. ii. It seems that the recording was brief. iii. I have not heard from the tradesman concerned. b. [The tenant/s] provided a video recording, taken from their ‘Ring’ security camera, showing the owner arriving at the property with a male, who is clearly recording the owner on his phone as she walks around the garden area in front of the house. They then enter the house. The Ring camera only captures the exterior of the property. Given that the man was recording Ms Chang as she walked around the exterior and he continued to have his phone directed towards her as they entered to the property, it is reasonable to assume that he continued to record after they entered the house. Landlords must exercise caution when taking photographs inside the house. They must exercise even more caution when it comes to video recording. A video recording can capture significantly more information than a photograph can. The tenants were not told that the landlord intended to make a video recording, they were not given the opportunity to view the recording, and they were not informed about the purpose of the recording. My finding is that indiscriminate video recording of this type amounts to an unreasonable interference with the tenants’ right to reasonable privacy. The incident does not amount to harassment of the tenant, and therefore I will not make an award of exemplary damages. I will make an award of compensation. In previous decisions where the Tribunal has found that the landlord breached the tenant’s privacy by taking excessive photographs, the Tribunal has tended to make a conservative award of compensation 13 . In this instance: -Because the contents of the landlord’s video recording are not known, it is difficult to assess the nature and extent of the invasion of privacy. -A video recording is a more significant intrusion than photographs. 13 $500 in Hurley Real Estate Ltd v Campen, $200.00 in Love Realty Ltd v Kirik [2016] NZTT Waitakere 15/01701/HE, and Goldsmith v De Vega [2016] NZTT North Shore 4012893, $100.00 in Andrews v McQuoid [2021] NZTT Kaikohe 4284314 -There are no mitigating considerations. The landlord has not explained the nature and purpose of the recording, has not provided a copy of the recording to the tenants, and has not (so far as I am aware) apologised to the tenants. I will award compensation of $750.00. Market rent
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent “on being satisfied that the rent payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a significant amount” 14 .
The rent payable during this tenancy was $750.00 per week.
[The tenant/s] provided information from the Tenancy Services website, which shows: a. Based on 63 bonds held, the median market rent for the Whangarei Heads area is $590.00. b. Based on 27 bonds held for 3-bedroom properties in the Whangarei Heads area, the median market rent is $620.00.
This property has a separate garage and workshop.
The limited information provided by the tenants is not sufficient to establish that the rent charged for this property exceeds the market rent by a significant amount.
This part of the tenants’ application is dismissed. Failure to provide contamination testing results
Given the history of the property, the tenants were concerned about the possibility of methamphetamine contamination.
They understood that the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine before the commencement of their tenancy.
They were not provided with any test results.
[The tenant/s] argued that this is a breach of the landlord’s duties under section 48 RTA.
Section 48 RTA governs the rights of the landlord to enter the premises during the tenancy. Section 48(3B) RTA states: 14 Section 25(1) RTA If premises are entered for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing (including as part of any decontamination process), the landlord must, within 7 days of receiving the results of the testing, notify the tenant, in writing, of the results of the testing and provide the tenant with a copy (if any) of the results.
The duty to disclose test results only applies if the landlord enters the premises during the tenancy for the purpose of testing for contaminants. It does not impose a general obligation on landlords to provide results if the premises are tested before the start of tenancy.
This part of the tenants’ application is dismissed. Loss of income from loft accommodation
As noted above: a. It was understood that the tenants would have a flatmate who would occupy the loft accommodation. b. The tenants did have a flatmate from the beginning of the tenancy. c. The tenant left in February 2023.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the flatmate left because: a. The loft was cold and damp due to leaks (window, shower), maintenance issues (toilet seat, shower door), and lack of underfloor insulation. b. The flooring was damaged by water and unsafe. c. The loft was not secure. An unknown person entered the loft when the flatmate was away, apparently using a key.
In late March 2023, [The tenant/s] was doing some cleaning in the loft when her foot went through the floor.
Mr Peters submitted that: a. He carried out an inspection after taking over management in August 2022. b. He noted some signs of water damage to the floor. He engaged a plumber who advised him that: i. There were no leaking pipes. ii. The water damage appeared to be historical. c. Mr Peters’ next inspection took place on 1 April 2023, shortly after [The tenant/s] foot went through the floor. d. He saw that the flooring was wet and compromised. It had deteriorated significantly since his last inspection. e. He involved a builder. Temporary repairs were carried out to cover the hole. f. The leak was identified (from around the window) and repaired, and the damaged flooring was replaced, by July 2023.
The lack of insulation is addressed above in the discussion of healthy homes compliance, and I have made an award of exemplary damages in respect of this.
The maintenance issues are addressed below. The shower door and toilet seat issues are minor. The leak from the shower is a concern, but it does not appear to be substantial. It is difficult for the tenants to argue that these relatively minor issues prevented them from re-letting the loft, or that these issues were the cause of the flatmate leaving, given that they were present from the beginning of the tenancy and the flatmate occupied the loft and paid rent from May 2022 until February 2023.
However, I accept that the damage to the floor, caused by the leak from the window, got significantly worse during the tenancy.
By March 2023 the floor was unsafe.
The landlord’s temporary repairs meant that the flooring was no longer unsafe, but the fact that the flooring was damaged and that substantial repairs were necessary meant that the tenants could not rent it out, at least certainly not for the amount that their previous flatmate paid.
There, I will make an award of compensation to the tenants for loss of use of the loft for the months of April – July 2023, a period of approximately 16-17 weeks.
The previous flatmate paid $250.00 per week.
I will award compensation of $2,500.00 Condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy
Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 15 .
As noted above, a ‘clean up’ was underway when the tenants first viewed the premises.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the premises (interior and exterior) were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness when the tenancy began.
[The tenant/s] claim seek compensation totalling $28,000.00, based on 200 hours at $140 per hour. This substantial figure includes: 15 Section 45(1)(a) RTA Buildings clean up and decontamination – 60 hours Grounds clean up - 40 hours Drains and trenches clearance – 20 hours On going hedges [shrubs] etc maintenance – 2 hours per month, every month x 10 = 40 hours Admin for property managers and 30+ tradespeople visits + email/calls 40 hours over 12 months
Eves Whangarei prepared an entry inspection report. I was not provided with a complete copy of that report. [The tenant/s] supplied some of the photographs from the report in parts of her evidence.
[The tenant/s] also provided her own photographs.
On 9 June 2022 [The tenant/s] sent Ms Engelbrecht an email covering a number of issues including: Vermin [issues with rats and cockroaches] None of the gardens were maintained on arrival “The smell” [referring to the smell of cannabis] is still in the bedrooms Extractor fan filthy and light broken This place was not clean on arrival. It will take time for us to clean it. The reason we were given for the uncleanliness was that the power wasn’t on. This made sense as the water pump wasn’t working to obtain or heat water
The property is in a rural setting. It appears that the property receives a substantial amount of stormwater from surrounding land, due to the contour of the land. The section around the house is boggy. There were previous attempts to improve the drainage around the section with some basic hand dug trenches. These were mostly overgrown and blocked when the tenants moved in.
Landlords must provide the premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness”. [The tenant/s] evidence shows that the landlords did not meet this standard in this instance. Parts of the gardens were overgrown and untidy. Parts of the dwellings were not reasonably clean.
The evidence provided to me does not support the claim for 120 hours of work to bring the premises and gardens to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The hourly rate claimed is not appropriate for cleaning and gardening work.
On the evidence available to me I will award $600.00, based on 20 hours of cleaning and gardening work at $30 per hour.
The claims for compensation for “admin for property managers” and for “on going [garden] maintenance” are dismissed.
Raising maintenance issues with the landlord and then dealing with tradespeople is an inconvenience for tenants. However, this is an unavoidable part of renting, and it is not something that the landlord is obliged to compensate the tenant for.
The gardens on this property are substantial, and the ‘lawns’ are frequently boggy. I acknowledge that maintaining this is a time consuming task for the tenants.
However, the legal position is that tenants must keep the premises (interior and exterior) reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. A landlord and tenant may agree that the landlord will be responsible for the lawns and gardens. [The tenant/s] submitted that she understood that Terry would look after the lawns and gardens as part of his apparent ‘caretaker’ role. However, there is no evidence of any agreement to that effect. Maintenance Overview
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises 16 .
This means that landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair at the start of the tenancy, and they must attend promptly to any maintenance requests made during the tenancy.
The application raises the following issues under this heading: a. Septic / waste water system. b. Water and hot water cylinder issues. c. Pests. d. Plumbing issues. e. Power / electrical issues. f. “General repairs”. Septic / waste water system
[The tenant/s] submitted that when they moved in and had the power connected the septic system alarm went off immediately.
This then caused the power to short out to the loft accommodation. 16 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
They were without power to the loft for four days. This was eventually resolved by an electrician that [The tenant/s] brought in.
The problem with the septic system related to the ‘waste blower unit’. This issue was resolved on 20 June 2022.
The septic system was serviced on 12 July 2022.
The septic system was not in working order at the beginning of the tenancy.
Clearly, this is an important amenity.
The problem was compounded by the fact that the failure of the septic system caused a short which resulted in loss of power to the loft.
The premises were not provided in a reasonable state of repair. Water and hot water cylinder issues
[The tenant/s] submitted that at the start of the tenancy: a. The household water was discoloured; and b. There was no hot water to the bath in the main bathroom;
Hot water was reinstated to the bath, but the hot water was very discoloured (an orange / brown colour).
It was discovered that the hot water cylinder was rusted and needed to be replaced. It was replaced on 29 September 2022.
The tenants had the water tested for e-coli. The result was negative.
The landlord arranged for a water treatment on the water tanks on 1 September 2022. This resolved the discolouration issue in the household water.
The premises were not in a reasonable state of repair in that: a. There was no hot water supply to the bath; b. The hot water cylinder was rusted and in need of replacement.
Where premises are not on a mains water supply, landlords must ensure that the premises have adequate means for the collection and storage of water 17 .
Landlords must also comply with all requirements in terms of buildings, health, and safety 18 . This includes a requirement for all premises to have a potable water supply 19 . 17 Section 45(1)(ca) RTA 18 Section 45(1)(c) RTA 19 Section 123 Building Act 2004
There is currently no mandatory obligation on landlords to have any filtration on tank or bore sourced water. This shifts the burden to tenants to prove that the water is not potable. [The tenant/s] submitted that they could only afford a basic e-coli test, and not a more comprehensive test for other contaminants.
In this instance it is not proven that the water is not potable.
However, for as long as there is no filtration in place that is capable of eliminating bacteria (such as a UV filter), there is a continuing risk that the water may become contaminated at any time. Pests
[The tenant/s] submitted that when they moved in there was evidence of the presence of rats, mice, and borer.
This is evidenced by [The tenant/s] photos.
When Mr Peters became involved in the tenancy he engaged [Pest control], who carried out an effective pest treatment in late August 2022. [The tenant/s] was then told that it was her responsibility to take over on-going pest management.
The following considerations are relevant: a. The fact that these are older wooden dwellings in a rural environment with an abundance of water makes them susceptible to rodents. b. Landlords and tenants should share the responsibility for pest management. c. Mr Peters took prompt and appropriate steps when he became involved. d. The treatment that Mr Peters arranged should have been done before the start of this tenancy. There was ample evidence of a significant rodent infestation at that time. There was also ample evidence of borer. e. The landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and habitable condition. Plumbing issues
[The tenant/s] raised the following issues under this heading: a. Laundry tub not connected. b. Outside taps, and workshop sink tap not working. c. Leaking shower in loft bathroom. d. Leaking kitchen sink taps. e. Dishwasher. f. Toilet seat in loft bathroom. g. Shower doors not closing. Laundry tub not connected
[The tenant/s] submitted that when the tenancy began the previous tenant’s washing machine was still in situ and attached the laundry tub.
Terry eventually removed that washing machine. [The tenant/s] submitted that this took two weeks and several requests.
They then discovered that the waste pipe on the laundry tub was not connected properly, and it leaked onto the floor the first time that they used their washing machine.
This was not repaired until 21 June 2022.
These issues meant that the tenants could not use their washing machine for the first four weeks of the tenancy.
This amounts to a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Outside taps and workshop sink tap
These taps are connected to a pond that is located on the farm part of the property. That supply is outside of the tenants’ control. [The tenant/s] submitted that there was often no water supply to these taps.
Mr Peters arranged for one of the outside taps to be connected to the household water supply.
A tenant can reasonably expect that if there is an outside tap there will be a supply of water to it most of the time. In a rural environment, tenants must accept that there will be rare occasions when supply can be interrupted.
The lack of a useable outside tap caused inconvenience for the tenants.
This amounts to a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. Leaking shower in loft bathroom
There was a leak from the shower cubicle that was addressed in June 2022. [The tenant/s] submitted that the problem seemed to be recurring, but she acknowledged that she had not raised it with Mr Peters before filing this application.
Given the history of leaks and floor damage in this area, it would be sensible for Mr Peters to address this promptly. Kitchen sink taps
[The tenant/s] submitted that the kitchen taps dripped. She let the landlord know about this in June 2022.
It was remedied in late September 2022.
The timeframe for repair is longer than ideal, however the issue is relatively minor. Dishwasher
The dishwasher leaked the first time that the tenants used it. [The tenant/s] informed the landlord about the problem.
There was some suggestion from Terry that the tenants had broken the dishwasher, but this was obviously not the case, and the landlord promptly purchased a new dishwasher, which was installed on 1 July 2022.
I accept that the landlord took prompt action once this issue was brought to their attention.
However, the dishwasher was one of the amenities in the property, and the tenants had a reasonable expectation that it would be in working order from the beginning of their tenancy. Toilet seat in loft bathroom
[The tenant/s] submitted that the toilet seat was broken from the beginning of the tenancy.
There is some dispute about whether the toilet seat was broken or whether it was simply the wrong seat for that toilet.
In any event, the seat needed to be replaced. [The tenant/s] raised the issue frequently, but it was not resolved until April 2023. Shower doors
The doors would not close completely. Again, [The tenant/s] raised this issue frequently from the beginning of the tenancy, but it was not resolved until April 2023. Power / electrical issues Oven
There is a [redacted] dual wall oven in the main house.
[The tenant/s] submitted that there were issues with the seal and hinges in the upper oven from the beginning of the tenancy.
In late 2022 / early 2023 the handle on the upper oven failed.
Mr Peters initially engaged [Electrician] (a local electrician) to replace the seals / hinges but unfortunately the job did not get done.
Mr Peters communicated with the owner about possibly replacing the oven, but the owner was reluctant to do this due to the cost and the fact that the oven was functioning and was in good condition except for the seals and hinges.
The owner was able to find replacement parts online, and these were sent to the property. They were installed in April 2023.
The landlord’s solution to the failed handle on the upper oven was to swap out the handle from the lower oven.
I acknowledge that Mr Peters took all reasonable and appropriate steps to resolve this issue after he took over management.
However, the tenants had to put up with the problems for a prolonged period of time. The oven was still useable, but the faulty seal meant that the oven was not efficient, and the faulty hinges was a potential a safety issue.
The tenants still do not have a completely repaired oven – the handle is missing on the lower oven. Mr Peters submitted that the tenants do not use the oven anyway. With respect, I do not agree that this removes the landlord’s obligation to repair. Trees growing into powerlines
There were several large trees close to the power line coming into the loft accommodation.
These trees were trimmed by [arborer] in October 2022.
[Arborer] left the cut branches behind.
Large trees are the landlord’s responsibility to maintain.
The fact that [Arborer] took action supports the tenants’ argument that the situation was hazardous, and the landlord should have taken action before the start of this tenancy. ‘General repairs’
[The tenant/s] raised several miscellaneous issues under this heading. ‘Water leaks in loft by sink and low kitchen window’, & ‘Upstairs loft floor / wall hole by kitchen window (water leak)’
[The tenant/s] attempted to explain these parts of her claim at the hearing, but it seemed to me that these are variants on the leak that caused the rot damage to the floor in the loft, which is discussed in detail above.
I have made an award of compensation in respect of this. Broken lock mechanism on bi-fold lounge doors
The lock failed in September 2022.
[The tenant/s] raised the issue in an email to Mr Peters dated 16 September 2022: Also, the bifold door has locked itself in closed position. I will attempt to fix if allowed?
Mr Peters replied: If you think you are able to fix it, then please go ahead. Let me know how you get on
There is no record of any further communication about this until late November.
Mr Peters then arranged for repairs, which were completed on 9 December 2022.
Mr Peters responded promptly and appropriately to this issue. Broken fireplace brick and fireplace check / clean
There are some broken and missing firebricks in the woodburner.
[The tenant/s] notified Mr Peters about this issue in November 2022.
Mr Peters attempted to arrange for an inspection of the woodburner but this did not happen until April 2023. [Fireplace inspector] carried out the inspection.
[Fireplace inspector] confirmed that the woodburner was in good working order and safe to use. They did not replace the firebricks.
I accept that [Fireplace inspector] are qualified to assess the woodburner, and the missing firebricks do not impact upon the useability or safety of the woodburner.
The delay from [The tenant/s] first notification in November 2022 until the assessment in April 2023 was not consequential given that this was over the summer months.
There is no evidence about when the woodburner was inspected prior to the beginning of this tenancy. I accept that [The tenant/s] has good reason to suspect that no such inspection was done.
However, the woodburner was in fact in good working order.
There is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation in respect of this issue. Maintenance – damages
Per my findings above, the landlord failed to meet its duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of: a. The septic system. b. Laundry tub waste water leak. c. Hot water to the bathroom. d. Hot water discolouration / failed hot water cylinder. e. Pest management. f. Outside taps. g. Dishwasher. h. Toilet seat in loft bathroom. i. Shower doors in loft bathroom. j. Oven. k. Trees close to power lines.
Some of these issues are more serious than others, and some lasted for a longer time than others.
Overall, it seems that there was an undue haste on the part of the landlord to rent out the premises before it was ready – before healthy homes compliance had even been looked into, before the property was adequately cleaned, before necessary maintenance was attended to.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant’s partner] had every right to feel disappointed with the condition of the property, and every right to feel frustrated (certainly for the first few months) with the lack of timely response when they raised legitimate concerns.
A failure by the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act 20 . Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
Exemplary damages are punitive in nature, and the Tribunal cannot make an award of exemplary damages unless it is satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally 21 .
The number and extent of maintenance breaches in this instance could raise an inference that the breach was intentional. However, I have not heard from the owner or from the property manager who acted for the owner at the start of this tenancy. It is possible that the breaches were negligent rather than intentional, and negligence does not amount to intention for the purposes of exemplary damages 22 .
Therefore, I will not make an award of exemplary damages in this instance.
I will make an award of compensation to reflect the loss of amenity that the tenants suffered as a consequence of the failure to maintain.
When assessing general damages, the Tribunal must take into account 23 : a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Having regard to those factors in this instance, I will award total compensation of $4,550.00, which equates to six weeks’ rent. Filing fee, name suppression
The applicant has been successful in this application, and I must also award the filing fee of $20.44 24 .
Name suppression is granted to the tenant on the basis that she has substantially succeeded in the proceedings 25 . 20 Section 45(1A) RTA 21 Birch v Otautahi Community Services Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 22 Chief Executive, ex parte Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT548/92, 29 June 1993 23 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 24 Section 102(4)(a) RTA 25 Section 95A(1) RTA
The order is made against the landlord named in the tenancy agreement, Ms Judy Chang.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541889 — Healthy homes at 100 Robinson Road, Whangarei Heads, RD 4, Whangarei

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541889 — Healthy homes at 100 Robinson Road, Whangarei Heads, RD 4, Whangarei

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions