What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4557589 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $3,020.44

How much money was awarded in case 4557589?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4557589?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4557589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11015445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4557589 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $3,020.44

How much money was awarded in case 4557589?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4557589?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4557589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11015445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 82 Mahia Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4557589 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4557589 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$3,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4557589 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$3,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $3,020.44 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant filed a claim over 18 months ago, claiming that the landlord had not maintained the property, which allowed mould to grow at the property causing risks to her and her families health.
In her initial application the tenant asked for the Tribunal to make an order requiring the landlord to rehome her, her application said: I was in contact with James from Tenancy services about the situation with the mouldy house. The Kāinga Ora just got their workers to seal the gap without replacing mouldy timbers. Now moulds coming out of the sink in the bathroom and there’s water wetting the carpet that we walk on. I Want Tenancy Tribunal to make an order to put me and my kids in safer and healthy homes. This house I’m staying does not provide healthy and safe homes for me and my three kids. Kāinga Ora been mucking me about. Through 7 to 8 years I’ve been living in this place. The excuse Kāinga Ora gave me is that all the Kāinga Ora homes are like mines. There’s always something wrong with the property. But if they were to fix the problems none of this would happen. In May 2023 the tenant updated her application saying: The house is currently wet from the carpet and its spreading through the whole hallway. This was the cause of the lack of professionalism that was used to do the repairs.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to require Kāinga Ora to rehome the tenant. The Tribunal can only make orders requiring the landlord to do something in relation to the subject property or to pay compensation or exemplary damages for breaches. The tenant has indicated that she wishes the Tribunal to make a monetary order, compensation or exemplary damages in respect of the claimed landlord breaches.

Why has the matter taken so long to be determined?

The matter has been adjourned several times because the tenant had indicated that she would resolve her claim by being relocated to another house that meet the needs of her family. Unfortunately, whilst Kāinga Ora had made attempts to relocate the tenant, there have been no houses that have become available that would meet the tenant’s family’s needs and in a location that would suit the tenant. The tenant has moved to another location and is current tenant of Kāinga Ora but claims that her current property does not meet all her needs.
Given the length of time that has passed I consider that it is appropriate to determine the tenant’s claims. If a claim is unable to be resolved in a reasonable time, then the Tribunal should determine it. Background
The tenant lived in the property at Manurewa for eight years from 2015 to 2023 with her children. At the beginning of the tenancy her partner also lived there. At times her mother visited her and lived with the tenant, so too her brother. The tenant’s eldest child has significant special needs.
The house is a three-bedroom weatherboard home (1960/70s). It had a large section and a standalone garage. There is a house at the rear which also a Kāinga Ora property.
During the tenancy there were multiple issues with leaks at the tenancy premises. • December 2015 - leak under the laundry sink • August 2017- rear spouting in the roof causing mould on the eves. • 23 January 2019 - water leak burst pipe under bathroom. • 16 July 2019 - roof leaking (not completed until late August 2019) as the complete re-roof • 9 December 2021 – Hot Water Cylinder leak – new cylinder put in • 19 January 2022- leak in the ceiling • 4 October 2022- Hot water cylinder leak • May 2023- burst pipe in toilet wall.
After the pipe burst in the toilet wall in May 2023 the contractor found toxic black mould. The tenant and her children were briefly relocated to emergency accommodation. The tenant then asked to be moved elsewhere, which the landlord accommodated. The tenant said that after she moved out there was a large sign placed on her tenanted property which said it hazardous and was contaminated with mould.
Kāinga Ora is not yet required to meet the Healthy Homes Standards. 1 So the tenant’s claim that it has failed to do so is dismissed. Apart from the date of compliance for Healthy Homes Standards Kāinga Ora is like every other landlord and is subject to the same obligations of landlords under the RTA.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition.
The tenant claims that whilst leaks may be fixed, the resultant problems caused by the leaks were not resolved such as wet carpet or wall linings, or soggy floorboards.
In late 2022 and early 2023 the Tenancy Compliance and Investigation Team (TCIT) investigated the property after a notification from the tenant. The investigation culminated with a compliance and improvement notice being issued on the 8 February 2023 from TCIT (MBIE- Tenancy Services) to Kāinga Ora requiring them to remedy breaches by the 10 March 2023 that were described in the notice as: Breach of s45(1)(b) RTA
2.1. The carpet in parts of the house has black mould on the underside caused by previously repaired water leaks and is likely to cause health issues for the tenants. A noticeable mould smell can be smelt in the main bedroom causing the tenants to not use this room. The exterior of the property is covered in green mould with the potential to cause health issues for the tenants. These are both in contravention of Section 45 (1) (a) 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
2.2 Repairs to a previously leaking bathroom and a rotten wardrobe floor in the house are substandard and still show signs of mould. There is an air gap between the wall and new floor of the wardrobe. Slugs have allegedly been seen coming from under the new wall linings around the bath suggesting continuing dampness behind the wall. The linings have not been sealed to the bath which wouldn't comply with the New Zealand Building Code. Newly installed underfloor insulation has fallen off the house and onto the ground 1 KO will be required to meet the Healthy Homes Standards on the 1 July 2025. 2 S 45 (1)(a) is an obligation of the landlord to provide the property in a reasonably clean condition. below. Recently replaced window handles have started to fall off. Rotten windowsills have been painted over. A light fitting in the lounge has not been repaired. Pieces of cladding and baseboards are either missing or broken on the exterior of the house which could cause weather tightness issues. These are all in contravention of Section 45(l)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord disputes that it failed to remedy items within a reasonable period of time, it says that it complied with the improvement notice within the requisite time and that this was confirmed by the TCIT who reinspected the property in March and noted compliance.
The tenants says that whilst the landlord came to look at the problems she raised they did so in a very piecemeal way, for instance if she complained about the hot water cylinder that they would send an electrician to look at the cylinder, or maybe a plumber, but would not send anyone to remedy the soggy particle boards which had become wet as a result of the hot water cylinder breaking.
Having considered all of the evidence including the inspection reports and the maintenance logs, I am satisfied that there was a failure to maintain the property by Kāinga Ora. I say this this for the following reasons: a. In an inspection report from July 2022, the tenancy manager noted Property condition is average due to stained carpets, marked/ damaged walls, mould issues and average housekeeping. Tenant advised a HH assessment had recently been completed. SHSM advised the HH team would make contact to discuss home improvements that would be carried out to make the home warmer and dryer... Tenant stated her son has respiratory issues... SHSM advised that as a HH assessment has been completed that they will cover of on any issues relating to making the home warm, dry and mould free. b. Despite there being visible mould on the carpets and walls in the bedroom, mould on the outside of the property, and visible staining on the carpets in the hallway likely from a previous leak, Kāinga Ora did not attend to these matters for another seven months until required to by TCIT. c. It is clear from the inspection report of July 2022 that there was work required at the property to make the property warmer and dryer and to fix the items noted. d. Whilst there is reference to the tenant’s housekeeping standards in the inspection report I do not consider that those standards contributed to the defects at the home. The tenant ensured that the tenancy manager had an uncluttered and unfettered access to the rooms so that any damage or problems can be noted and seen. The main living areas are reasonably tidy, especially when the fact that the tenant had three very young children living in the home at the date of the inspection in 2022. e. I am also satisfied that the landlord did not replace the particle board or the carpet after the leaks in the bedroom, bathroom and the toilet leading to soggy floorboards and mould on the carpet.
I am also satisfied that the landlord breached s 45(1)(c) RTA by failing to comply with the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which requires every home to be free or dampness (regulation 15). The dampness caused mould and as stated in the Biodet report of May 2023, (which was obtained after the contractor fixing the toilet leak noticed a proliferation of black sooty substance in the wall) 3 the presence of the toxic black mould is caused by “the presence of this fungus is always indicative of prolonged moisture, such as a leak or wetting event. Often the fungus is confined to wall cavities where these materials tend to retain moisture for longer.”
I am also satisfied that the landlord breached regulation 15 and s45 (1)(b) by failing to clean the outside of the property where prolific green ‘mould’ can be seen on the timber weatherboards.
Breaching s45(1)(b) or (c) are 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.
I find that Kāinga Ora 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.
I have awarded the tenant $3,000.00 for this breach this takes into account: a. The number and severity of the problems at the home. b. That Kāinga Ora completed the repairs in a piecemeal way, there appeared to be a lack of co-ordination and oversight when an issue arose, such as if the bathroom leaked, the leak was fixed but not the resultant damage. c. The effect on the tenant: the tenant told me she felt helpless and frustrated, she would raise the issues with her tenancy manager but nothing would get done. She was very concerned about the health of her children. My overall impression from what the tenant and the tenancy managers told me at the hearings and what I saw in the reports that the tenant’s complaints were often categorised by the landlord as the tenant being troublesome, or whinging, and that they were often dismissive of the tenant. For instance, the mould in the bedroom walls and carpet was clearly visible and was appeared to be the result of a defect in the building, yet the tenancy manager links it to the tenant’s housekeeping. d. That when TCIT investigated that they found significant issues with the property, that had remained unremedied for months. e. The public interest. The public expects that the state’s housing provider to provide safe, healthy homes to its tenants, who are often the most vulnerable tenants in New Zealand. Private landlords are required to have healthy homes compliance and are subject to significant awards of exemplary damages if they do not comply. It is only fair that when the state 3 The conclusion of the Biodet report dated 22 May 2023 was “Likely well-established growth of Stachyboys and other fungi in response to prolonged wetting.” fails to provide a home for a young family that is not maintained to a reasonable level that presents a health risk to the tenants, that an award is made. I have also given consideration to the fact that any award is paid for from the public purse and should not represent a windfall. That requires a fine balancing act. This situation was unique and I do not consider it opens the floodgates for further claims against Kāinga Ora. Name suppression and filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant her name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4557589 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 82 Mahia Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4557589 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 82 Mahia Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Why has the matter taken so long to be determined?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Why has the matter taken so long to be determined?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions