What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4570350 about?

The tribunal order states: Mandy Wei Acting For Lemon Property Management Limited & Harcourts,

How much money was awarded in case 4570350?

Compensation: HWC & Heating: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment: $156.28 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570350?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9920401-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4570350 about?

The tribunal order states: Mandy Wei Acting For Lemon Property Management Limited & Harcourts,

How much money was awarded in case 4570350?

Compensation: HWC & Heating: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment: $156.28 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570350?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9920401-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

24A Lowtherhurst Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4570350 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4570350 — net $4,876.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HWC & heating	$3,500.00	HWC & heating
Rent overpayment	$156.28	Rent overpayment
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,200.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,876.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,876.72

Order

Mandy Wei Acting For Lemon Property Management Limited & Harcourts, Golden Links Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $4,876.72 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
This is a rehearing from an earlier hearing held on 14 August 2023.
The tenancy began on 2 July 2020. The premises were sold, and the tenants were advised of this by letter dated 28 October 2020. The tenancy continued with the same terms under the new landlord.
There had also been a change of management with Harcourts, Golden Property Management Company taking over from Lemon Property Management Limited in May 2023.
Despite the change of owner and property management the tenancy agreement from July 2020 was the only agreement. Initially it was for a fixed term ending on 30 June 2021 but as the fixed term tenancy was not renewed it became a periodic tenancy from July 2021.
After the hearing held in August 2023 the landlord gave the tenants notice to vacate pursuant to section 51(2)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which relates to termination for demolition.
After receiving notice, the tenants decided to leave early and gave notice accordingly. They left the tenancy on 21 October 2023.
As a result of the order made after the hearing on 14 August 2023 the bond was refunded to the tenants. There is no claim to the bond, so the refund of the bond is not disturbed by this order.
The tenants had applied for a work order but as they have left the tenancy this is no longer required, and that claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s remaining claim relates to Healthy Homes standards and compensation for paying full rent when the property was not adequately maintained and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s failure to maintain. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022; b. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 28 August 2022; c. All private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. d. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. e. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The tenancy commenced on 2 July 2020. The landlord therefore has until 1 July 2025 to comply with the Healthy Homes standards. Therefore, this landlord is not in breach of the Healthy Homes standards. That part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Heating
The tenant complained that there was no heat pump at the premises. At the hearing it was confirmed by both parties that there was no heating provided by the landlord.
The tenant said that she used a gas heater that she thought may have been unsafe.
The landlord said that they were not required to provide heating because the tenant knew that the premises were going to be demolished. She also said that the tenant had a heater and did not ask the landlord for one.
The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 set out the minimum standards that apply to premises, including: “6.Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating.”
The premises did not have an approved form of heating. From the beginning of the tenancy the tenant experienced four winters without the landlord providing any approved form of heating. This requirement does not rely on the tenant asking for it. This is a minimum standard that should be complied with. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims 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 landlord failed to repair a leaking hot water cylinder, address electrical issues and investigate the mould issue. I find they have 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.
The tenant advised the landlord of issues at the premises in an email dated 3 March 2021. That email referred to: (a) An electrical fault – sizzling noises and arching from the power board; (b) Hot water cylinder – hot water only from the shower and a leak with black mould; (c) Heat pump/extractor fans – none provided; (d) Kitchen floor – mould under lino; (e) Lounge door – gap underneath; (f) Lawns – landlord’s responsibility in tenancy agreement.
Following receipt of this email the only action taken by the landlord was to employ an electrician to look at the electrical issues. That electrician provided a report and appeared at the hearing as a witness.
The electrician looked at the electrical part of the hot water cylinder but was not able to assess the cause of any leak. He gave evidence that there was no water leak when he attended but he did see signs of a previous leak and presumed it was from a long time ago.
The tenant produced photographs from 9 May 2023 and 23 October 2023. Both lots of photographs clearly show water at the base of the hot water cylinder.
The landlord disputed this but did not produce any photographs showing there was no water. I note that the photographs of the hot water cylinder in her inspection reports were taken either up high with no clear view of the base of the cylinder or from a distance.
The landlord also tried to claim that any water was due to the tenant’s wet laundry on the floor. This is not accepted because the amount of water that I see in the photographs could not have been caused by wet laundry.
The tenant complained of mould and produced a photograph showing both black and white mould that had grown under the lino. This was an issue that she had raised in 2021 and nothing had been done.
At the hearing the landlord stated that it was the tenant’s responsibility to clean mould when it appears. While I accept that that is the case where mould grows on walls and ceilings a tenant cannot be expected to clean mould growing underneath lino. Also, it is the landlord’s responsibility to investigate the cause of mould growth.
In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/089/2002, it was said: “A tenant must also tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken. The landlord is also required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as bad construction or water lying under the premises, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this can not be done then it is the landlord problem. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is available, then it is the tenant’s problem.”
The landlord did not investigate the mould issue during the tenancy. If enquiries had been carried out it is likely that the hot water cylinder was the cause.
Taking account of these issues and the landlord’s failure to maintain over a two- and-a-half-year period I consider that an award of $1,200.00 is reasonable. Compensation
At the earlier hearing the tenants were awarded a rent reduction of $136.00 per week (1/3 or weekly rent) from 3 March 2023 until the date of hearing being 14 August 2023. The rent reduction was granted on the basis that the landlord was in breach of the Healthy Homes standards and due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard.
As I have determined that the landlord was not in breach of the Healthy Homes standards, I have granted compensation of $3,500.00 in relation to the maintenance issues that were not addressed by the landlord over a lengthy period of time. It was not acceptable that these matters were not address because the premises were to be demolished. The issues would have had a significant impact on the health and safety of these tenants. This compensation takes account of all the issues raised by the tenant in her email sent in 2021.
The previous Adjudicator reduced the rent from the date of hearing until the end of the tenancy. The parties followed this part of the order as the rehearing was not granted until November 2023, after the tenancy ended. I am told that the landlord was happy for the tenants to pay this reduced amount for rent. I don’t propose to change this part of the previous order.
The landlord produced a rent summary showing that the tenant had paid in accordance with the Tribunal order and at the end of the tenancy the tenant was $156.28 in credit for rent. The tenant was not aware of this credit. That amount should be refunded to the tenant, so I have ordered this accordingly.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s names from this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4570350 — net $4,876.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HWC & heating	$3,500.00	HWC & heating
Rent overpayment	$156.28	Rent overpayment
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,200.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,876.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,876.72

Order

Mandy Wei Acting For Lemon Property Management Limited & Harcourts, Golden Links Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $4,876.72 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
This is a rehearing from an earlier hearing held on 14 August 2023.
The tenancy began on 2 July 2020. The premises were sold, and the tenants were advised of this by letter dated 28 October 2020. The tenancy continued with the same terms under the new landlord.
There had also been a change of management with Harcourts, Golden Property Management Company taking over from Lemon Property Management Limited in May 2023.
Despite the change of owner and property management the tenancy agreement from July 2020 was the only agreement. Initially it was for a fixed term ending on 30 June 2021 but as the fixed term tenancy was not renewed it became a periodic tenancy from July 2021.
After the hearing held in August 2023 the landlord gave the tenants notice to vacate pursuant to section 51(2)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which relates to termination for demolition.
After receiving notice, the tenants decided to leave early and gave notice accordingly. They left the tenancy on 21 October 2023.
As a result of the order made after the hearing on 14 August 2023 the bond was refunded to the tenants. There is no claim to the bond, so the refund of the bond is not disturbed by this order.
The tenants had applied for a work order but as they have left the tenancy this is no longer required, and that claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s remaining claim relates to Healthy Homes standards and compensation for paying full rent when the property was not adequately maintained and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s failure to maintain. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022; b. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 28 August 2022; c. All private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. d. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. e. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The tenancy commenced on 2 July 2020. The landlord therefore has until 1 July 2025 to comply with the Healthy Homes standards. Therefore, this landlord is not in breach of the Healthy Homes standards. That part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Heating
The tenant complained that there was no heat pump at the premises. At the hearing it was confirmed by both parties that there was no heating provided by the landlord.
The tenant said that she used a gas heater that she thought may have been unsafe.
The landlord said that they were not required to provide heating because the tenant knew that the premises were going to be demolished. She also said that the tenant had a heater and did not ask the landlord for one.
The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 set out the minimum standards that apply to premises, including: “6.Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating.”
The premises did not have an approved form of heating. From the beginning of the tenancy the tenant experienced four winters without the landlord providing any approved form of heating. This requirement does not rely on the tenant asking for it. This is a minimum standard that should be complied with. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims 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 landlord failed to repair a leaking hot water cylinder, address electrical issues and investigate the mould issue. I find they have 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.
The tenant advised the landlord of issues at the premises in an email dated 3 March 2021. That email referred to: (a) An electrical fault – sizzling noises and arching from the power board; (b) Hot water cylinder – hot water only from the shower and a leak with black mould; (c) Heat pump/extractor fans – none provided; (d) Kitchen floor – mould under lino; (e) Lounge door – gap underneath; (f) Lawns – landlord’s responsibility in tenancy agreement.
Following receipt of this email the only action taken by the landlord was to employ an electrician to look at the electrical issues. That electrician provided a report and appeared at the hearing as a witness.
The electrician looked at the electrical part of the hot water cylinder but was not able to assess the cause of any leak. He gave evidence that there was no water leak when he attended but he did see signs of a previous leak and presumed it was from a long time ago.
The tenant produced photographs from 9 May 2023 and 23 October 2023. Both lots of photographs clearly show water at the base of the hot water cylinder.
The landlord disputed this but did not produce any photographs showing there was no water. I note that the photographs of the hot water cylinder in her inspection reports were taken either up high with no clear view of the base of the cylinder or from a distance.
The landlord also tried to claim that any water was due to the tenant’s wet laundry on the floor. This is not accepted because the amount of water that I see in the photographs could not have been caused by wet laundry.
The tenant complained of mould and produced a photograph showing both black and white mould that had grown under the lino. This was an issue that she had raised in 2021 and nothing had been done.
At the hearing the landlord stated that it was the tenant’s responsibility to clean mould when it appears. While I accept that that is the case where mould grows on walls and ceilings a tenant cannot be expected to clean mould growing underneath lino. Also, it is the landlord’s responsibility to investigate the cause of mould growth.
In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/089/2002, it was said: “A tenant must also tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken. The landlord is also required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as bad construction or water lying under the premises, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this can not be done then it is the landlord problem. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is available, then it is the tenant’s problem.”
The landlord did not investigate the mould issue during the tenancy. If enquiries had been carried out it is likely that the hot water cylinder was the cause.
Taking account of these issues and the landlord’s failure to maintain over a two- and-a-half-year period I consider that an award of $1,200.00 is reasonable. Compensation
At the earlier hearing the tenants were awarded a rent reduction of $136.00 per week (1/3 or weekly rent) from 3 March 2023 until the date of hearing being 14 August 2023. The rent reduction was granted on the basis that the landlord was in breach of the Healthy Homes standards and due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard.
As I have determined that the landlord was not in breach of the Healthy Homes standards, I have granted compensation of $3,500.00 in relation to the maintenance issues that were not addressed by the landlord over a lengthy period of time. It was not acceptable that these matters were not address because the premises were to be demolished. The issues would have had a significant impact on the health and safety of these tenants. This compensation takes account of all the issues raised by the tenant in her email sent in 2021.
The previous Adjudicator reduced the rent from the date of hearing until the end of the tenancy. The parties followed this part of the order as the rehearing was not granted until November 2023, after the tenancy ended. I am told that the landlord was happy for the tenants to pay this reduced amount for rent. I don’t propose to change this part of the previous order.
The landlord produced a rent summary showing that the tenant had paid in accordance with the Tribunal order and at the end of the tenancy the tenant was $156.28 in credit for rent. The tenant was not aware of this credit. That amount should be refunded to the tenant, so I have ordered this accordingly.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s names from this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570350 — State of repair at 24A Lowtherhurst Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570350 — State of repair at 24A Lowtherhurst Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions