What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4551150 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,980.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4551150?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach Of Work Order: $760.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4551150?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4551150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9939992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4551150 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,980.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4551150?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach Of Work Order: $760.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4551150?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4551150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9939992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4551150 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4551150 — net $1,980.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of work order	$760.00	Breach of work order
Compensation: Breach of repair and maintenance obligations	$1,200.00	Breach of repair and maintenance obligations
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,980.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,980.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4551150 — net $1,980.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of work order	$760.00	Breach of work order
Compensation: Breach of repair and maintenance obligations	$1,200.00	Breach of repair and maintenance obligations
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,980.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,980.44

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,980.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. This may be set off against rent payable by the tenant:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5 April 2024: a. Have the condition of the drains and guttering at the premises investigated by a suitably qualified tradesperson and undertake clearing as required. If any other potential issues are identified such as water leaks, they must be repaired/remedied as required. b. Arrange a suitably qualified tradesperson to check the workmanship of the rebuilding of the front doorstep to ensure it is safe and fit for purpose.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 3, the rent will reduce by $100.00 per week from 13 April 2024 per week until the work is completed.
The landlord is to follow up within a reasonable timeframe the work required in relation to the extraction fans.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] has filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking compensation, exemplary damages and work orders, for various breaches of the landlord’s obligations including alleged non-compliance of a work order, failure to repair and maintain the premises and comply with healthy homes standards, unlawful entry and a breach of quiet enjoyment.
In a civil claim such as this, the applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. This means that [The tenant/s] as the applicant must prove with evidence that his claim is more likely than not, correct. When assessing whether the onus of proof has been discharged by an applicant, I need to consider and evaluate the evidence and information presented by the parties. While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.
A case conference was held on 26 May 2023 and a hearing took place by teleconference on 12 October 2023. [The tenant/s] attended as the applicant tenant. Mr Paopao attended for the landlord, Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited. Non-compliance of work order
On 13 November 2020, the Tribunal made a work order against the landlord under application 4277449 for the landlord to carry out the following work to the premises situated at [Tenancy address suppressed], which was to be completed by Friday 11 December 2020: a. Have the condition of the storm water drain and guttering investigated by a suitably qualified tradesperson and undertake clearing as required. If any other potential issues are identified such water leaks, they must be repaired/remedied. b. Replace the missing lower front door seal. c. Have the condition of the stains on the carpet assessed and determine the appropriate course of action, if any.
[The tenant/s] subsequently sought a penalty for late compliance of the work order by the landlord.
Breaching a work order without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The issue of late compliance with the work order was considered by the Tribunal in its order of 14 April 2021. The Tribunal found no breach of the work order in terms of the carpet stains or the front door seal. In relation to the work order concerning the storm water drain and guttering, the Tribunal stated: In the Tribunal’s view, the landlord committed an unlawful act under section 108(2A) because they did not have a “reasonable excuse” for non-compliance with the work order. While the evidence does not show there has been any significant flooding or detriment to the tenant and his enjoyment of the premises, given the over-arching public interest involved in ensuring that such work orders are complied with, I infer that the breach was intentional and I find that an award of exemplary damages is just.
The Tribunal ordered exemplary damages of $54.00 for non-compliance with the work order concerning the drain and guttering. It was noted the award was not made in lieu of the work order and remained effective and enforceable.
[The tenant/s] filed the current application on 17 April 2023, claiming the landlord has still not complied with the work order concerning the drain and guttering. He said property flooding was occurring at the premises for about two years after the November 2020 Tribunal order was made. Given the lack of action from the landlord, [The tenant/s] said he cleared the drains in November 2022 (he bought a water blaster to do this). He said this was a temporary fix and it required ongoing clearing. He explained the problem was exacerbated by an overhanging tree (from the neighbours) over the roof which drops all its foliage into the guttering. So even if it was cleared out, it was still going to block because of the debris from the overhanging tree. He believed the drains and guttering had not been maintained at all by the landlord. He said the master drain had at least 40 years’ worth of debris in it.
The landlord noted that the guttering referred to by [The tenant/s] was on the 2 nd level, above the apartment directly above [The tenant/s] apartment. The landlord submitted that following the last hearing, arrangements had been made to organise someone to assess the guttering and drains. The landlord recalled wanting to go back to the site to take more photographs because of the height in case they needed a cherry picker or some other form of apparatus to do the clearing. But, then [The tenant/s] advised that he had already cleared the drains. The landlord said that as [The tenant/s] had cleared the drains and there were no further flooding issues the landlord was aware of, other than the excess runoff from the [City] weather event in January 2023, the landlord hadn’t actually arranged for anyone to investigate the drains and guttering. The landlord noted that [The tenant/s] had notified it of the drains outside his unit having blocked again in September 2023, and that a work order was made for a plumber to attend. Following a request for an update on the work, Oaks Property Management (Kāhui Tū Kaha Ltd’s landlord) advised by email on 11 October 2023 that its plumber attended the property to assess it and returned two days later to find the issue was already fixed.
Although [The tenant/s] had cleared the drains, this was not until 2022, a number of months after the Tribunal had found in its order of 14 April 2021 that the landlord had committed an unlawful act under section 108(2A) because it did not have a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the work order concerning the drain and guttering. In any event, this did not absolve the landlord’s obligation to comply with the work order. Even if [The tenant/s] had cleared the drains, and there had been no further flooding, the landlord was still obligated to carry out an investigation of the drains and guttering as per the work order but failed to do so.
After considering all the available evidence, including the parties’ oral evidence and submissions at the hearing, I find that the landlord breached its obligation to carry out the work order concerning the drain and guttering as required. Given that the work was ordered under a Tribunal order, the responsibility to ensure the work was done rested firmly with the landlord. In those circumstances, it is not incumbent on the tenant to chase up the landlord. The landlord failed to take reasonable steps to adopt a robust process to ensure that the work order was carried out.
I have previously found that the landlord committed an unlawful act under section 108(2A) because they did not have a “reasonable excuse” for non-compliance with the work order concerning the drain and guttering (Tribunal order dated 14 April 2021 under application 4277449). The landlord knew, or should have known, that if they did not have a good process for checking that the work order was completed, a further penalty would be a likely consequence. The failure to complete the maintenance work as ordered caused the tenant further frustration and annoyance. It is of significant interest both to the tenant, the Public and this Tribunal that landlords comply with their obligations and with Tribunal orders.
The tenant is entitled to compensation. The tenant has sought compensation of $5,000.00 but I consider this excessive. I consider the sum of $20.00 for every month that the remaining work was outstanding to the date of the filing of the current application (April 2023) is reasonable. I award compensation of $760.00. I emphasise that the compensation awarded is not made in lieu of the work order in relation to the drain and guttering and remains effective and enforceable.
As exemplary damages have previously been awarded, no additional exemplary damages are awarded. Repair and maintenance
A landlord is required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45(1)(a) and (b) of the RTA. In addition, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises (section 45(1)(c) RTA). The landlord also has obligations under s45(1)(bb) RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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 RTA.
It is well settled law that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of its obligations under section 45, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
[The tenant/s] tenancy commenced in April 2019. He has filed an application with the Tribunal claiming the landlord had breached its obligation to repair and maintain in a timely manner in relation to the following: window joinery repairs in the bathroom and the master bedroom due to paint flaking from weather damage, rebuilding of the front doorstep which has collapsed, repair ranch slider which was not functioning, clearing and investigating the drains, clean filthy exterior of the property, replacement of the collapsed boundary fence and installation of extractor fans.
Over the duration of his tenancy, [The tenant/s] has raised multiple requests for repairs and maintenance, including requests made at quarterly inspections and by 14-day breach notices, but he says for the most part requests were ignored or not properly addressed. He is concerned that no paper record of quarterly inspections has been provided to him recording his repair and maintenance requests including photographs, despite multiple requests to the landlord for this.
At a case conference held on 26 May 2023, the landlord indicated that following the last inspection on 27 January 2023, it has attempted to inspect and assess the repair and maintenance issues highlighted in [The tenant/s] application, but he has refused access. [The tenant/s] raised concerns regarding the inspection process. He asserted that the inspection should be undertaken by the landlord but was concerned that this duty appeared to be taken on by others (specifically Kāhui Tū Kaha Ltd’s landlord, Oaks Property Management) who appeared to him to have a superior title.
To facilitate the process further, the Tribunal by order dated 23 June 2023, directed [The tenant/s] to allow access to the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents and contractors to the premises for an inspection and assessment of the issues highlighted in [The tenant/s] application on Friday 7 July 2023 at 12pm, on service of the relevant notices by the landlord under sections 48(2) or 48(3) RTA. In light of [The tenant/s] concerns regarding the inspection process, the Tribunal directed Kāhui Tū Kaha Ltd to ensure there was a paper record of the inspection undertaken.
While an inspection was carried out on 7 July 2023, [The tenant/s] says there was no inspection or assessment of the issues highlighted in his application and there was no paper record of the inspection undertaken.
In response to [The tenant/s] claims, the landlord accepted that there have been problems associated with the property as with most properties. However, it believes it has been reasonably responsive in attempting to fix repair and maintenance issues. If any problems continued to recur, the landlord relied on the tenant reporting this. The landlord submitted that the difficulty here was that [The tenant/s] would raise a repair or maintenance issue, but then would address it himself, without giving the landlord or its contractors an opportunity to do so first.
I am satisfied that the landlord had been notified on numerous occasions of the above repair and maintenance issues raised by [The tenant/s] over the period 2019 – 2021. I consider the landlord has breached its obligations in relation to the collapsed front doorstep, ranch slider, repair of the window joinery in the bathroom and the master bedroom and flaking paint due to weather damage and cleaning of the exterior.
In relation to the collapsed front doorstep, [The tenant/s] says he made a request to the landlord during early 2020 for a step that had been destroyed by flood water to be rebuilt as it had collapsed. [The tenant/s] says this request was ignored by the landlord despite repeated requests, so he took the initiative to attempt repair in late 2021 at his own expense but he considered it would be good for an appropriately qualified tradesperson to check the work to ensure it was safe and fit for purpose. The parties do not agree on what subsequently occurred. The landlord did not specifically recall that the front doorstep had collapsed, although it considered any issue with the front doorstep had been fully addressed. However, I accept [The tenant/s] evidence that the front doorstep had collapsed, and this defect had persisted for some time. This issue had safety consequences. I find the landlord did not take sufficient or timely steps to attend to this issue. I consider the sum of $300.00 reasonable compensation in the circumstances. I have also made an order for the landlord to arrange a suitably qualified tradesperson to check the front doorstep to ensure it is safe and fit for purpose.
I consider the landlord has breached its obligations in relation to the ranch slider. [The tenant/s] says he made a request to the landlord in 2019 to repair the ranch slider. Several attempts made by the landlord’s contractors to repair failed. A repair was eventually done in September 2022. Although the landlord had requested some tradespeople to undertake the repair, they failed to ensure the repair was completed and the ranch slider was usable. During this time the tenant was put to some considerable inconvenience and distress. I find the delay in attending to this issue was too long. I find that the landlord had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the work was actually done or on track, by proactively checking in with their contractors and checking the premises. Simply leaving the work to an external contractor (or agent) and failing to follow up that the work has been done or is on track for completion, is not acceptable. I consider the sum of $200.00 reasonable compensation in the circumstances. No work order is required at this time.
In relation to the repairs of the window joinery in the bathroom and the master bedroom and flaking paint due to weather damage, and cleaning of the filthy exterior which was covered in mould and both notified to the landlord in 2020, I find the delay in attending to these issues was also too long. After no action taken by the landlord, [The tenant/s] again took the initiative and attended to these issues himself at his own expense. While communication between the landlord and Oaks Property Management Ltd in October 2023 indicates the owner is not worried about the cosmetic look of the property, it is in the public interest for tenancies to be maintained by landlords as required by the legislation. I consider the sum of $700.00 reasonable compensation in the circumstances. No work order is required.
In relation to the issue concerning clearing and investigating the drains, this has been mostly addressed by the Tribunal above. The work order from the Tribunal made on 13 November 2020 (under application 4277449) concerning the drains and guttering remains effective and is enforceable. No additional compensation is awarded. I have re-directed that the work is to be completed by 12 April 2024. As an alternative to compliance, the rent will reduce by $100.00 per week from 13 April 2024 per week until the work is completed.
In relation to the installation of the extractor fans, [The tenant/s] said the landlord sent contractors to the premises in 2021 to install extractor fans and a heat pump. The heat pump was installed, and the extractor fans were placed on the kitchen bench for installation. A subsequent attempt by contractors to install the extractor fans failed. No contractor has returned to complete the job.
I do not consider that the failure to install extractor fans constitutes a breach of the RTA. Compliance dates for the remaining Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) vary depending on the tenancy. Relevantly in this case, all private rentals were to comply within 90/120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. This tenancy commenced in 2019. As such, the compliance date in relation to this tenancy is 1 July 2025. However, I have made an order for the landlord to follow up the work required in relation to the extraction fans.
In relation to the collapsed boundary fence, [The tenant/s] says this problem began in 2021. [The tenant/s] notified the landlord and has also taken the initiative to prop it back up and remove all foliage. The fence on the east boundary came down after the [City] severe weather event in January 2023. Only part of the fence (60 metres) has been repaired.
In a follow up email by the landlord on 11 October 2023, Oaks Property Management Ltd responded that the property is on a cross lease, therefore shared maintenance needed to be approved by ALL the owners. It further noted that the owners are working on the issue and that their owner had already paid $1,012.32 out of their own pocket to repair some of the fence and would not be spending any more on this issue.
I am unable to make a work order relating to the fence because it involves a third party, the neighbour, and most likely requires Council input and possibly Council consent so I do not know the nature and extent of the work involved or the likely timeframe. However, the landlord is on notice that given this issue has persisted for some time it is imperative for the landlord to resolve the issue.
In relation to the defects where I accept the landlord has breached their obligation to repair in a timely manner, I have made awards for compensation totalling $1,200.00 that is meaningful but not excessive.
I do not consider that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. The landlord has been lax, but this is not a case, in my view, where the landlord has intentionally ignored their obligations. Unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38 RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
[The tenant/s] states that there were a number of episodes of unlawful entry resulting in a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the premises. He referred to the following incidents: a. 2020 – [The tenant/s] says a person claiming to be from the Body Corporate attended his home during level 3/4. He reported this incident to the Police and arranged for a trespass order. b. Sept 2022 – [The tenant/s] says two people (with no ID) came to his door claiming to be the landlord and Kāhui Tū Kaha Ltd employees. He reported this incident to the Police and arranged for a trespass order. c. Sept 2022/late 2022 – [The tenant/s] says he was advised by email that workers would attend his address on Saturday at 4pm to fix the ranch slider. However, he arrived home on Friday afternoon to find the workers inside his home without his consent. [The tenant/s] says the workers trampled on his vegetable garden with their boots and walked through the inside on the carpet with their boots. He requested that the landlord immediately retrieve his door key from the workers. d. Jan 2023 – [The tenant/s] says that while clearing the drains, 4 people attended the property to carry out an inspection during a severe weather event. He did not consider all those who attended were authorised to attend and undertake the inspection.
I find there is insufficient evidence to support [The tenant/s] claims.
Coming to the property without notice is not a breach of the Act. Only entering the dwelling without notice.
The landlord genuinely understood the tenant had consented to the contractors entering the premises to repair the ranch slider and acknowledged that contractors tramping through [The tenant/s] property with boots, including on the carpet, was not acceptable. It doesn’t recall anyone turning up unannounced.
The landlord was adamant that proper notice had been given for inspections. Those that attended, attended for the landlord or as agents for the landlord. Although it notes [The tenant/s] concern regarding the number of people attending inspections and therefore tries to limit the number of those attending.
The landlord was not aware of the other unannounced attendances (as claimed by [The tenant/s]) to the premises.
I do not find [The tenant/s] has proved on the balance of probabilities there was a breach here. This portion of the application is dismissed. Ancillary orders
[The tenant/s] requested ancillary orders in relation to damage to the exterior cladding shown to the Landlord on 7 July 2023. He claims on 17 September 2023, the cladding fell onto the ground and threw asbestos in all directions. He is concerned that the landlord failed to record or repair. He requested an order immediately for the hazardous materials to be removed and his bedroom to be secured again from weather.
The Tribunal is restricted to the claims set out in the original application. As the claim relating to the exterior cladding was not part of the original application, the Tribunal was unable to consider it. If [The tenant/s] wishes to pursue this claim, it is open to him to file a further application through Tenancy Services which will be dealt with at a separate hearing. Filing fee and suppression order
I note that [The tenant/s] name and identifying details were suppressed under the previous Tribunal order referred above. As he has succeeded with a number of claims in his current application, it is reasonable for suppression to continue and for the other party to reimburse the filing fee.
Given the landlord’s breach, the landlord is not entitled to a suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4551150 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4551150 — Property damage

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