What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4546749 about?

The tribunal order states: Te Papa Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $5,420.44

How much money was awarded in case 4546749?

Property Damage: $3,900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546749?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9311117-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4546749 about?

The tribunal order states: Te Papa Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $5,420.44

How much money was awarded in case 4546749?

Property Damage: $3,900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546749?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9311117-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Selwyn Street, Tauranga, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4546749 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4546749 — net $5,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenities based on breach of landlord's obligation to repair the roof in a timely manner 07/03/202	$3,900.00	loss of amenities based on breach of landlord's obligation to repair the roof in a timely manner 07/03/202
Exemplary damages: issuing retaliatory notice	$1,500.00	issuing retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,420.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claim 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 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

In terms of maintenance, a landlord’s obligation is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. What is a reasonable time, depends on the gravity of the problem and the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate and put right the problem (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)).

A landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs (section 45(1)(d)).

The tenant has on 8 July 2022 given notice to the landlord about the leaks from the roof. The roof was only fixed in March 2023, 8 months later from the first report of leaks.

I have had regard to the landlord’s contention that it was very difficult to get local contractors to the property to carry out the roof repairs. The landlord says that even scheduling a roofer to visit the roof took a few weeks to happen and the lead time for scheduling of work is 8-10 weeks. The landlord contacted 2 roofers to see if work can commence any sooner.

Despite those circumstances set out by the landlord, I consider no more than 2 months to be a reasonable timeframe for the leaks to be checked out, attended to and roof repaired. Contacting merely 2 roofers is insufficient in my view to show that the landlord has everything possible within their control to address and remediate the roofing issues. The remedial work involved only re-screwing of affected areas on the roof, rather than a more extensive complete reroofing.

The landlord’s suspicion that the issues to do with leaks on the roof predate the landlord’s purchase of the property from the tenant’s father does not excuse the landlord’s failure to attend to the roof repairs within a reasonable time after the tenant’s notification in July 2022.

The tenant said that water was running down the internal walls, onto the bed and the carpets, and swelled the front door to the point that it could not be opened. The internal walls were damp, contained mould, and grew black mushrooms. Parts of the house were also not able to be fully utilised by the tenant prior to the roof being repaired.

As a general rule, a leak is a serious matter and must be repaired promptly. As determined by adjudicator J Robson in Frampton v Property Brokers Limited TT 4117238, 4122927, 20 Feb 2018, leaks go to the very essence of a tenant’s right to the use and enjoyment of the premises in consideration of the rent that the tenant pays. A leak is not a mere inconvenience; it creates an undesirable and unhealthy living environment.

I assess the tenant’s loss of amenities at $150.00 per week from 07/09/2022 to 07/03/2023 for the landlord’s breach of its obligation to repair the roof in a timely manner. The roof ought to have been repaired by September 2022 in the circumstances.

The amount of damages ordered against the landlord for failing to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a reasonable timeframe are proved.

To compound the issue, the landlord on 24 February 2023 gave the tenant a 90 day notice ending the tenancy in May 2023. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The 90 day notice issued by the landlord was in direct response to the tenant’s 14 day notice of 23 February 2023 to the landlord to address the leaks from the roof. The roof was still unrepaired at the material times.

While the landlord asserts that it was always intending to end the tenancy in May 2023 regardless of when the unrepaired roof would be attended to, I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord was at least partly motivated to end the tenancy by the tenant exercising a right under section 45 of the Act and by the tenant’s complaint against the landlord to speed up on the roof repairs.

I do not accept the landlord’s allegation that the tenant was intending to move out in May anyway or that the tenant already “had a place in mind”. The tenant clearly refuted the landlord’s position in their response on 3 March 2023 as follows: In response to your earlier email, in regard to the discussion on 26 January, our recollection of the discussion around our plans of relocation differs somewhat to yours. We had no plans to relocate or any such place in mind. Having been put on the spot, that was merely a rough time frame of when we may look to purchase our own property. Likewise, we did not state we would consider making an offer on the property at that stage. What we said was should the owners decide to sell the properties individually in the future, to let us know and at that point we would consider our options and whether or not we’d be interested. This was confirmed by our reply to the message which we received from your phone the following day requesting we provide an offer on the property.

In any event, any interest that the tenant may have in purchasing the property (which may have later been abandoned) is irrelevant to the landlord’s obligation to carry out repairs and attend to maintenance issues in a timely manner. The timing of the landlord’s 90 day notice clearly points to it being retaliatory.

I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Considering those factors and circumstances of the landlord’s offending against the effects of the tenant in having to make arrangements to relocate whilst still suffering from the effects of leaks from an unrepaired roof, I award exemplary damages of $1,500.00 in favour of the tenant.

Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have also reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4546749 — net $5,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenities based on breach of landlord's obligation to repair the roof in a timely manner 07/03/202	$3,900.00	loss of amenities based on breach of landlord's obligation to repair the roof in a timely manner 07/03/202
Exemplary damages: issuing retaliatory notice	$1,500.00	issuing retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,420.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claim 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 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

The tenant has on 8 July 2022 given notice to the landlord about the leaks from the roof. The roof was only fixed in March 2023, 8 months later from the first report of leaks.

The amount of damages ordered against the landlord for failing to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a reasonable timeframe are proved.

To compound the issue, the landlord on 24 February 2023 gave the tenant a 90 day notice ending the tenancy in May 2023. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.

I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have also reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4546749 — Property damage at 9 Selwyn Street, Tauranga, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4546749 — Property damage at 9 Selwyn Street, Tauranga, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions