What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4582649 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4582649?

Property Damage: $540.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $540.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,160.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4582649?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4582649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10338331-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4582649 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4582649?

Property Damage: $540.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $540.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,160.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4582649?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4582649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10338331-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 447 Beach Road, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4582649 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4582649 — net $3,260.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$2,160.00	Section 45
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$540.00	Quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Insulation statement	$540.00	Insulation statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,260.44
Bond	$1,620.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,260.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4582649 — net $3,260.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$2,160.00	Section 45
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$540.00	Quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Insulation statement	$540.00	Insulation statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,260.44
Bond	$1,620.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,260.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Saddleback Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $3,260.44 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a Spanish interpreter. The tenant was represented by counsel.
There were two hearings. The first took place on 21 November 2023 but was adjourned due to health concerns. The second hearing took place on 11 April 2024.
The tenancy began on 7 January 2019 and ended on 24 December 2022.
The tenant applied for compensation for water usage due to leaks, exemplary damages for failure to maintain, breach of quiet enjoyment, interference with services, breach of the Healthy Homes standards and that the termination was unlawful. The tenant claimed refund of the bond of $1,620.00 which is still held by the Bond Centre. Compensation for water leakage
The tenant claims that there were water leaks including one in 2019. At that stage the landlord asked [Water company] for a rebate.
There was a leak in January 2022 which was fixed by [Water company].
The tenant claims there were further leaks and referred to a text on 25 July 2022 in which she advised the landlord. The landlord’s response was that he would arrange a plumber. The landlord said that the leak was fixed in August.
In September 2022 the tenant mentioned to the landlord that there was mud outside the house suggesting that there was a leak. The tenant says that the landlord said he would get a professional to look at the issue but never did.
On 22 December 2022 the tenant discovered that there was a significant leak and advised the landlord. As this was around the time that the tenancy ended there is conflicting evidence as to when the water was disconnected from the mains and whether the tenant was advised in advance. The landlord believed that the tenants had vacated the premises whereas the tenant claims that they were still living there and had not been advised of the disconnection. The landlord’s evidence is that the last water bill was high, so he paid it.
While it is acknowledged that there were leaks at the premises it is impossible to determine the length of time that there was leaking or the amount of water that leaked. The tenant has referred to the average water consumption of a person living in the United Kingdom, but that information does not assist in determining whether the landlord should reimburse the tenant for water usage, and if so, how much.
I have reached the conclusion that on the evidence it is not possible to determine whether the tenant was charged for water over and above their actual consumption and if they were it is not possible to estimate this amount or conclude that the landlord was at fault. For these reasons I make no award for compensation for water leakage. 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 investigate the cause of mould in the premises. 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 tenants mentioned the mould issue early in the tenancy. The landlord provided a dehumidifier for the tenant to use. The tenant says that this needed to be run all the time. The tenant cleaned and sanded the mould and re-painted some areas.
The tenant produced photographs showing significant mould at the premises as well as mould damage to some of their belongings. The tenant also expressed to the landlord their concern for the health of their child due to the mould.
The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had advised about condensation. A ventilation system was installed in August 2020. The tenant’s evidence is that this system did not stop the dampness and mould. Inspections were carried out in August and November 2022 where the tenants pointed out the mould to the Property Manager.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to investigate the cause of the mould.
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 evidence confirms that the landlord knew of the mould problem but took no steps to investigate the cause. The mould had a significant impact on the tenants as it affected their day-to-day life and damaged some of their belongings. It is in the public interest that landlords address the issue of mould when it presents itself. These landlords did not do so.
I consider that a reasonable award for damages is $2,160.00 which is equivalent to four weeks rent. I acknowledge that this is less than the amount sought by the tenants and less than the value of the belongings that they say were damaged, but in reaching this amount I have taken account of section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims 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 approached the tenant on 21 December 2022 in a way that the tenant felt threatened. 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 that 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 landlord and his agent had attempted to contact the tenant during a workday. Soon after the tenant arrived home the landlord appeared asking why he hadn’t answered the agent’s calls and messages. The tenant’s evidence is that the landlord’s tone was demanding and angry and he raised his voice and was yelling at the tenant. The tenant said that the landlord’s words were slurred and because of his behaviour and the smell of his breath he believed that the landlord was drunk.
Due to this altercation the tenant felt threatened so went in the house and locked the door. Later that day the tenants sent an email to the Property Manager in relation to this incident. The email also stated that there was an earlier occasion where the landlord had attended the tenancy in a drunk state.
The landlord moved into the residence next door to the tenancy in June 2022. The tenant said that contact with the landlord was almost daily from that time.
The landlord acknowledged that he had asked for one of the tenant’s phone numbers when the other tenant was on the driveway. He said that he thought it was a good relationship, but he was trying to get hold of the tenant.
It is not appropriate for the landlord to act in the way as described by the tenant. I accept the tenant’s evidence about the event. The landlord should not have attended at the tenancy without notice after moving next door. I accept the tenant’s evidence that he felt threatened. I consider that an award of $540.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Interference with services
The tenant claims that the landlord has interfered with services and in particular the water supply to the premises.
Section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states, The landlord shall not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out.
As referred to above 1 , the tenant advised the landlord that there was a leak on 22 December 2022. The landlord was of the mistaken belief that the tenant’s were not living at the premises as they had moved much of their belongings to their new residence. The water was turned off at the mains which is usually located at the roadside.
A plumber was arranged to repair the leak on 23 December 2022. The water was turned on after the leak was repaired by the plumber.
The tenant’s issue is that they did not receive notice that the water would be shut off. The landlord did not produce any evidence of communication with the tenant about the water being cut off.
However, I accept that the water was cut off to enable repairs to be carried out as provided for by the legislation. The landlord did not cut the water off for the sole reason that he thought the tenants had left. 1 Paragraph 9
The communication between the Property Manager and the tenants should have been better especially in relation to an essential service such as water. But I do not consider that the water was cut off intentionally to deprive the tenant of this service. To make an award for exemplary damages the unlawful act must have been carried out intentionally 2 . The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for interference with services is dismissed. Insulation statement
This tenancy began on 7 January 2019. The Healthy Homes standards became law on 1 July 2019.
In relation to insulation, it became compulsory in all rental homes since 1 July 2019.
The tenancy agreement was signed by the parties on 10 December 2018. It was originally for a fixed term from 1 January 2019 until 10 January 2020. The fixed term was extended to 10 January 2021 and then to 10 January 2023.
The tenant’s submissions referred to the landlord’s insulation statement included with the first tenancy agreement. Unfortunately, this part of the tenancy agreement was not included in the documents submitted to the Tribunal. The submissions say that the statement records that it was unknown whether there was any insulation due to lack of accessibility. At the time the premises did not require to be insulated.
The issue here are the variations of the tenancy agreement signed by the tenants which extended the fixed terms to 10 January 2021 and 10 January 2023.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Saddleback Trust failed to provide the information required as provided by section 13A(1CB). I find Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Saddleback Trust has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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 did not have the necessary information relating to insulation. It is important for landlords to provide information relating to insulation as required by the legislation. The landlord needed to provide an insulation statement in both the tenancy agreement 3 and the variations to the tenancy agreement 4 .
The landlord says that the premises were insulated by 1 July 2019. The landlord says that the tenant had not asked for documents confirming compliance with the Healthy Homes standard for insulation which the tenant could have requested 5 . However, as the variations did not provide the information related to the insulation the landlord is at fault. At the hearing the tenant said that they were not claiming that the premises were not compliant, rather that the statements were not renewed.
I consider that an award of $540.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Termination
The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 10 January 2023.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord sent to the tenant a 63-day notice to vacate the premises. The reason given for the notice was that the owner intended to reside in the premises. The notice did not provide a termination date. The notice advised the tenant that they could give 28 days’ notice to vacate earlier.
On 18 December 2022 the tenant emailed the landlord advising that they would not be renewing the tenancy agreement due to expire on 10 January 2023.
The issue for the tenant is that they do not believe that the owners intend to move back into the property which is the reason given for the termination. 3 Section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 4 Section 13A(1CB) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 5 Section 45(1AC) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Section 60A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the law in relation to fixed term tenancies and when they become periodic unless subsection 2 applies.
The landlord was not able to give notice to end the fixed term tenancy because the notice relied upon 6 applies to periodic tenancies not fixed term tenancies.
However, section 60A(2)(b) provides that the tenancy will not become periodic if before the expiry, the parties agree not to continue with the tenancy.
As both parties had indicated that they did not want to continue with the tenancy I accept this as agreement between them.
The issue of whether the landlord intends to reside in the premises is not relevant given the agreement. If the tenant had not given notice to not continue with the tenancy, then the situation may have been different. The landlord’s unlawful notice may have influenced the tenant’s decision to end the tenancy but on the evidence, it was not clear.
The tenants claim in relation to the termination is dismissed.
The bond is released to the tenants.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s names in accordance with their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4582649 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 447 Beach Road, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4582649 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 447 Beach Road, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630

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