What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4595373 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 4595373?

Compensation: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595373?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9331168-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4595373 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 4595373?

Compensation: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595373?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9331168-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4595373 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4595373 — net $7,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$4,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$3,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,020.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
MMK Investments Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $7,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $4,000.00 Exemplary damages $3,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $7,020.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $7,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Roundhill from Braziers represented the landlord.
The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages for failure by the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, to provide heating in the living room at the premises, and to provide the premises in a reasonably tidy condition.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires landlords to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The Standards provide detailed requirements for the provision of heating, adequate ventilation, drainage, minimising draughts and moisture ingress in rental properties. The date for compliance with the Standards depends on the type of tenancy and its start and/or renewal date. For ordinary tenancies that commenced after 1 July 2021 (such as this tenancy) the landlord must comply with the Standards within 120 days after the date the tenancy commenced: clause 2 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
Also relevant here is section 45(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. That section provides that the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonably tidy condition, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires landlords to provide a heating source in the living room of the premises.
Failure to comply with either section 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) or (c) of the Act may entitle the tenant to compensation. A failure to comply is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages maybe payable up to a maximum of $7,200.00: sections 45(1A) and sch 1A of the Act.
The facts here are not in dispute.
The tenancy commenced on 27 January 2023 and the tenancy agreement recorded that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards because they were not free from draughts and there was no source of heating in the living room. The agreement recorded that the landlord would install a heat pump in the living room and remedy the draughts issues within the date for compliance with the Standards being 27 May 2023 (120 days of the tenancy commencement).
Despite the tenants frequently asking for the work to be done, the heat pump was not installed until 1 August 2023, and draughts from the front and back doors were not remedied until 8 August 2023.
The lawn/garden areas of the premises were full of weeds at the tenancy commencement. The weeds were finally sprayed/removed in or about April 2023 and topsoil was laid ready for lawn seeding. However, as at the date of the hearing, the lawn seeding work had not been done.
There is no dispute that the landlord is in breach of sections 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) of the Act. Of particular concern was the failure to provide from the tenancy commencement a source of heating for the tenants in the living room until some six months after the tenancy commencement. This obligation is separate from the obligation to ensure the heating supplied is sufficient to comply with the Standards. The tenants were therefore left without adequate heating for the majority of the winter, and they said that the premises were constantly cold. This would have been exacerbated by the draughts coming in through the obvious gaps in the front and back exterior doors. The landlord was required to provide, at the tenancy commencement, and maintain the premises during the tenancy in a reasonable state of repair and the gaps in the exterior doors are, in my view, in breach of that obligation as well as the obligations to remedy draughts under the Standards. The tenants said that the failure to complete the lawn reseeding work meant that the ground was muddy, and the area was unable to be used.
In the circumstances I consider the sum of $3,500.00 reasonable to compensate the tenants for the failure by the landlord to provide a source of heating in the living room and to remedy the draughts issue and $500.00 for the failure to remedy the issues with the lawns and gardens. When assessing the amount of compensation, I have taken into account that the rent for the premises is $550 per week and the tenants have paid over $15,000.00 for the tenancy when they have had limited use and enjoyment of the living room in particular due to the lack of heating.
As mentioned, a breach of section 45(1) of the Act is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable.
Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act. The threshold requirement is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
There is no doubt that the landlord was aware of the obligation to comply with the obligations to comply with the Standards within the required timeframe, to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of tidiness and repair, and to provide a source of heating in the living room. Therefore, the failure to comply can only be regarded as intentional and I consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate here.
Ms Roundhill said that Braziers had been working with the landlord to try to get the premises compliant with the Act, but the landlord was seemingly reluctant to have the work completed. Ms Roundhill said that landlord preferred to believe another person who told him that he was not required to comply with the Act because he had the property on the market for sale, despite Braziers telling him otherwise. Thus, it would seem that the landlord had rather a cavalier attitude to the requirements in the Act and the effect that a failure to comply might have on the tenants. This is an aggravating feature. I also note that the landlord did not install the heat pump or remedy the draughts issues until after the tenants filed this application. The effect on the tenants has been noted above. I have also taken into account that it is in the public interest and the interests of tenants generally that landlords comply with all of their obligations regarding their tenancies.
Taking into all the circumstances I consider exemplary damages at the higher end is appropriate for the failure to provide a heating source and to remedy the gaps in the doors and at the lower end for the failure to remedy the lawn issue given it had less effect on the tenants. I therefore order that the landlord pay to the tenants exemplary damages of $2,500.00 for the heating and draughts (breach of section 45(1)b) and (c) of the Act), and $500.00 for the failure to remedy the issues with the lawn at all or in a timely manner (breach of section 45(1)(a) of the Act). I do not consider a further award of exemplary damages for failure to comply with the standards within the required timeframe (breach of section 45(1)(bb) of the Act) is appropriate given my exemplary damages award for the same or similar conduct under section 45(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.
The tenants have been successful in their claims and are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Should a suppression order be made?

The tenants applied, in their application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenants have been wholly successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4595373 — net $7,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$4,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$3,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,020.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
MMK Investments Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $7,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $4,000.00 Exemplary damages $3,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $7,020.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $7,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Roundhill from Braziers represented the landlord.
The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages for failure by the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, to provide heating in the living room at the premises, and to provide the premises in a reasonably tidy condition.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires landlords to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The Standards provide detailed requirements for the provision of heating, adequate ventilation, drainage, minimising draughts and moisture ingress in rental properties. The date for compliance with the Standards depends on the type of tenancy and its start and/or renewal date. For ordinary tenancies that commenced after 1 July 2021 (such as this tenancy) the landlord must comply with the Standards within 120 days after the date the tenancy commenced: clause 2 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
Also relevant here is section 45(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. That section provides that the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonably tidy condition, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires landlords to provide a heating source in the living room of the premises.
Failure to comply with either section 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) or (c) of the Act may entitle the tenant to compensation. A failure to comply is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages maybe payable up to a maximum of $7,200.00: sections 45(1A) and sch 1A of the Act.
The facts here are not in dispute.
The tenancy commenced on 27 January 2023 and the tenancy agreement recorded that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards because they were not free from draughts and there was no source of heating in the living room. The agreement recorded that the landlord would install a heat pump in the living room and remedy the draughts issues within the date for compliance with the Standards being 27 May 2023 (120 days of the tenancy commencement).
Despite the tenants frequently asking for the work to be done, the heat pump was not installed until 1 August 2023, and draughts from the front and back doors were not remedied until 8 August 2023.
The lawn/garden areas of the premises were full of weeds at the tenancy commencement. The weeds were finally sprayed/removed in or about April 2023 and topsoil was laid ready for lawn seeding. However, as at the date of the hearing, the lawn seeding work had not been done.
There is no dispute that the landlord is in breach of sections 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) of the Act. Of particular concern was the failure to provide from the tenancy commencement a source of heating for the tenants in the living room until some six months after the tenancy commencement. This obligation is separate from the obligation to ensure the heating supplied is sufficient to comply with the Standards. The tenants were therefore left without adequate heating for the majority of the winter, and they said that the premises were constantly cold. This would have been exacerbated by the draughts coming in through the obvious gaps in the front and back exterior doors. The landlord was required to provide, at the tenancy commencement, and maintain the premises during the tenancy in a reasonable state of repair and the gaps in the exterior doors are, in my view, in breach of that obligation as well as the obligations to remedy draughts under the Standards. The tenants said that the failure to complete the lawn reseeding work meant that the ground was muddy, and the area was unable to be used.
In the circumstances I consider the sum of $3,500.00 reasonable to compensate the tenants for the failure by the landlord to provide a source of heating in the living room and to remedy the draughts issue and $500.00 for the failure to remedy the issues with the lawns and gardens. When assessing the amount of compensation, I have taken into account that the rent for the premises is $550 per week and the tenants have paid over $15,000.00 for the tenancy when they have had limited use and enjoyment of the living room in particular due to the lack of heating.
As mentioned, a breach of section 45(1) of the Act is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable.
Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act. The threshold requirement is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
There is no doubt that the landlord was aware of the obligation to comply with the obligations to comply with the Standards within the required timeframe, to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of tidiness and repair, and to provide a source of heating in the living room. Therefore, the failure to comply can only be regarded as intentional and I consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate here.
Ms Roundhill said that Braziers had been working with the landlord to try to get the premises compliant with the Act, but the landlord was seemingly reluctant to have the work completed. Ms Roundhill said that landlord preferred to believe another person who told him that he was not required to comply with the Act because he had the property on the market for sale, despite Braziers telling him otherwise. Thus, it would seem that the landlord had rather a cavalier attitude to the requirements in the Act and the effect that a failure to comply might have on the tenants. This is an aggravating feature. I also note that the landlord did not install the heat pump or remedy the draughts issues until after the tenants filed this application. The effect on the tenants has been noted above. I have also taken into account that it is in the public interest and the interests of tenants generally that landlords comply with all of their obligations regarding their tenancies.
Taking into all the circumstances I consider exemplary damages at the higher end is appropriate for the failure to provide a heating source and to remedy the gaps in the doors and at the lower end for the failure to remedy the lawn issue given it had less effect on the tenants. I therefore order that the landlord pay to the tenants exemplary damages of $2,500.00 for the heating and draughts (breach of section 45(1)b) and (c) of the Act), and $500.00 for the failure to remedy the issues with the lawn at all or in a timely manner (breach of section 45(1)(a) of the Act). I do not consider a further award of exemplary damages for failure to comply with the standards within the required timeframe (breach of section 45(1)(bb) of the Act) is appropriate given my exemplary damages award for the same or similar conduct under section 45(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.
The tenants have been successful in their claims and are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Should a suppression order be made?

The tenants applied, in their application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenants have been wholly successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595373 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595373 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions