What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4570229 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 4570229?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570229?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9746825-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4570229 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 4570229?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570229?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9746825-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

135 Moore Street, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4570229 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4570229. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning	$200.00	cleaning
Exemplary damages: HHS Certificate	$350.00	HHS Certificate
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$3,000.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4570229. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning	$200.00	cleaning
Exemplary damages: HHS Certificate	$350.00	HHS Certificate
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$3,000.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 19 January 2024: a. Have the waste disposal unit and fuse box inspected by a registered electrician. b. Complete any recommended repairs.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $5000.00 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $5,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Faris Nakkash must pay [The tenant/s] $3,570.44 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation: cleaning$200.00 Exemplary damages: HHS Certificate$350.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain$3,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,570.44
The tenants’ application for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment and reduction of the fixed term are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
As part of the application, the tenants sought reduction of the fixed term. By the time the matter was for hearing there was only a matter of weeks remaining. The application was not pursued for that reason, and it dismissed.
I note that following the hearing the tenant has provided a number of additional documents to the Tribunal. I have not read these and I do not consider them as they have not been seem or commented on by the landlord. To consider them would breach natural justice. Work Orders
The tenant claims that the landlord did not repair the fuse box – which struggled with the load of appliances in the kitchen, nor did he repair the waste disposal unit. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

The tenant raised the issues with the fuse box and the waste disposal unit with the landlord, together with issues relating to power points which were giving shocks, and sub-standard light switches. The landlord had an electrician attend the premises to repair the light switches and the power points, but did not instruct him to attend to the fuse box or the waste disposal unit.
The landlord says the electrician assessed the waste disposal unit, although no evidence was provided in support of this. Given the landlord also commented that waste disposal unit will “work forever” if operated properly and blamed the tenants for any issues, I view his evidence that the unit was assessed with some scepticism in the absence of such evidence.
The tenant’s evidence is that the fuse box previously worked fine, but around the time the power points started shocking them, the fuse box began blowing when multiple appliances were used together. The tenants do note that there appears to have been an improvement following the repair of the light switches, but they are concerned that the fuse box is a safety risk and consider it should be assessed.
I agree. The tenants currently live with the anxiety of this impacting their safety, and it may well be a safety issue. The landlord must attend to this and ensure that the fuse box is operational and safe.
In relation to the waste disposal unit, the landlord cannot make assumptions about damage and liability for any damage. The landlord must have the waste disposal assessed and, if necessary, repaired. If there are disagreements about the liability for any damage, these can be traversed in the Tribunal
As the work orders are not made with consent, I am required to order a monetary alternative. However, given the potential safety issues, it is preferable that the landlord has the work done. The monetary alternative is designed to encourage that course.
Further, if the landlord fails to comply with either order, the tenants may have the work done, and pass the cost on to the landlord. This may be done by way of rent abatement.
Again, given the nature of the work to be done, it is preferable if the landlord engages his own electrician to do the work, but the alternative remains to ensure that the work is done. Exemplary Damages
The RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order those exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal is able to consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award. Failure to maintain
[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.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants formally raised maintenance issues with the landlord in an email dated 31 October 2022 and followed this with a 14-day notice on 7 November 2022.
The following table includes the issues raised in the email and14-day notice, and that date of repair: Issue:Repaired Bedroom door stopNovember 2022 Shower pressureNot done Back steps insecure 21 November 2022 Mirrors on sliding door to be securedNot done MouldNo response Provision of a health homes certificateNot done Smoke alarms replaced21 November 2022 HRV servicedNot done Locks on the ranch slider insecureNot done Rangehood duct has holes and not secured to wall September 2023 Hot tap in ensuite not workingNot done Lights flickering in the master bedroomMay 2023 Handrail on deck not secureJuly 2023 TV antennae cannot connectNo response Net curtains dusty and rottedNot done Ends of curtain rails are missingNot done Window latches missingNot done Power point in bedroom doesn’t workNot done
Other issues – such as the fuse box, waste disposal unit, light switches and power points were raised later.
For the majority of these issues, there was no response or a limited response. The landlord’s position is that there is a maintenance plan that he is working through, although no details have been provided. In relation to the mirrors on the sliding doors, the ranch slider lock and the hot tap in the ensuite, the landlord noted that the mirrors were serviceable, there was a lock, but not a deadbolt on the ranch slider, and the ensuite bathroom tap needs to run for a while to become operational. He claims that he told the tenants this. The tenants accept that one of the locks on the ranch slider works, they deny the remaining explanations.
Having heard the evidence, I consider that the tenants have proved this portion of the claim in all areas except – a. The mirrors on the sliding door. b. The curtains and the ends of the curtain rails, and c. The ranch slider lock.
For the first two, I note the tenants’ position and I accept their evidence. However, I do not consider this is a maintenance issue. These items were in the same condition at the start of the tenancy, and they should be considered in light of that at the end of the tenancy.
In relation to the ranch slider, I accept that the ranch slider is lockable, albeit a deadbolt may be preferable. In relation to the leak in the ranch slider, this does not appear to have been raised with the landlord for consideration and repair.
In relation to the remaining issues, I accept these have been raised with the landlord and either no action taken, or very delayed responses. There is no reasonable excuse for this.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows: a. The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a house with significant maintenance issues unattended to. They have had to raise these on many occasions and have found that distressing and draining. The tenants’ health concerns have amplified to issues in relation to mould and dust. b. I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair this damage. The tenants have communicated the issues, clearing and repeatedly. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is significant. c. Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and I award $3,000.00. Failure to provide healthy homes information
[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, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants have asked for healthy homes information, in writing, more than once. The landlord has simply ignored this request. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a house they perceive as having multiple issues and sought the reassurance that it complied with the HHS.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally. The request was clear and in writing.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations in this regard. Parliament has made it clear that HHS are important, and that tenants are entitled to know the status of their home.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and as I harbour some real concerns about whether this home is compliant with the HHS, I consider that a significant award is appropriate. I award $350.00. Cleanliness at start of tenancy
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
The tenants claim that at the start of the tenancy the premises was not in a reasonably clean and tidy state. They provided photographs in support of this claim.
The landlord’s position is that the photographs are not an accurate representation of the condition of the premises. However, he was unable to provide corroborating evidence.
The tenants cleaned the premises themselves and have sought compensation for their time. Having heard the evidence and seen the photos, I consider compensation is appropriate and I set that at $200.00. In the hearing the tenant’s agreed with this figure. Harassment
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 landlord claims the tenants have behaved the same way.
The tenants allege that on several occasions, mostly when maintenance issues were raised, the landlord raised his voice and shouted at them. The landlord’s evidence is that he has a fairly loud voice and that is can become louder when he is stressed or under pressure. He denies yelling at the tenants.
It was evident in the hearing that the landlord becomes very animated in discussion, and that he does have a louder than average voice. That could well have given the tenants the impression that he was shouting. However, I do not consider that the landlord did this with the intention of upsetting or distressing the tenants.
Accordingly, I do not consider that the landlord has intentionally breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyments in circumstances which amount to harassment.
This portion of the claim is dismissed. Filing Fee
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570229 — State of repair at 135 Moore Street, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570229 — State of repair at 135 Moore Street, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions