What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4595381 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 4595381?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595381?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9422902-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4595381 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 4595381?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595381?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9422902-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4595381 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Te Aro Tenancies Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $9,234.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Urquhart represented the landlord.
This tenancy started in August 2021. The tenancy premises is a four bedroom apartment in a commercial building in the city. One of the tenants moved into the apartment at the start of the tenancy and the three others signed a variation to the tenancy agreement and moved in in April 2022.
The tenants have claimed compensation because of problems with leaks during the tenancy and they are not sure if the apartment was Healthy Homes compliant. They have also claimed exemplary damages – which are like a penalty - because the house was not maintained, and because the previous property manager came into the house without giving proper notice. The questions I have to decide are: • Did the apartment comply with the requirements of the Healthy

Homes Standards?

• Did the apartment leak? • Did the landlord enter the house without giving proper notice?

Did the apartment comply with the requirements of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The tenants were concerned about whether the landlord installed the heat pump within the required 90 days of the new tenancy starting. The landlord provided supporting evidence the heat pump was installed on 26 January 2022. This is before three of the four tenants who have filed this application moved into the tenancy premises. I find the variation has to be taken as the start date for the claims made in this application. This means there was no breach.
There is conflicting evidence about whether the landlord knew the fans in the bathroom area were not working. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I am not persuaded by their evidence.
There is a claim relating to moisture ingress. The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. I have not been provided with any evidence that there were inadequate systems to drain water. I find no breach of the HHS and this claim is dismissed.

Did the apartment leak?

The tenants have claimed compensation because of their living conditions. The claim is for half the rent from April 2022, when the variation was signed, until the end of the tenant. Under section 45 of the RTA a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of this obligation 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 RTA.
It is agreed evidence the apartment leaked. The landlord’s representative at the hearing only joined the company this year. He went to the apartment in 2023 for the first time. He agreed the living conditions were not acceptable.
A number of windows had cracks in the glass, and some had a sticky plastic coating holding the glass together. When it rained water would run down the walls onto the carpet in the lounge. This was a problem from the start of the variation. The tenants put their towels on the floor in an effort to keep the carpets dry, but the house was damp and mouldy, and the flooring rotted. The tenants provided evidence to show they advised the landlord, but the leaks continued.
There were also leaks in the bathroom when it was really wet. Water would come through the lights and the fan. The landlord submitted it did attempt repairs, but the tenants were not sure this actually happened because the leaks continued. The bathroom was mouldy and cold.
I find the tenants should get compensation. I allow $100 a week from the date of the variation. The compensation is for loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience. It is less than the tenants have claimed, but the amount seems reasonable to me based on the weekly rent and the fact that three or the four bedrooms and the kitchen could still be used normally.
I also find the landlord 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) RTA.
The landlord submitted that there are two divisions in the company, one which looks after maintenance and one which manages the tenancies. He said the communication between the two had been problematic during this tenancy and this meant maintenance issues were not addressed. He also submitted that repairs to the apartment were difficult to arrange and sometimes they had to wait for specialist people, such as abseilers to look at the windows. I accept that repairs to an apartment in a commercial building conversion will be different from repairs to a stand alone house. However, this is the reality if the landlord chooses to rent such an apartment, and tenants should not suffer because of it. I find the lack of maintenance was intentional.
The effect on the tenants was significant. They could not use the lounge properly and enjoy the space as a flat. They spent money on warm clothes, and blankets. They bought extra heaters and dehumidifiers to try and keep the damp away. They spent time and money washing the towels they used to protect the lounge floor from rain. They bought exit mould and scrubbing brushes and did extra cleaning. They were dispirited when their maintenance requests were ignored by the landlord. Some of the tenants had counselling and two had asthma. Belongings grew mould and had to be thrown away.
It is in tenants’ interests that houses are free from leaks and there is public interest in safe, dry houses. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2,400. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous, similar orders against the landlord.

Did the landlord enter the house without giving proper notice?

The tenants claim that a property manager who is no longer with the company entered the apartment without giving proper notice and without consent. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
It seems most likely this happened before the variation was signed. An email from the property manager dated 12 January 2023 states he has not been in the apartment for over a year. This was before three of the four tenants who have filed this application moved into the tenancy premises. Again, I find the variation has to be taken as the start date for the claims made in this application. This means there was no breach.
In any event, the tenant who was living in the apartment at the time of the entry did not come to the hearing. The tenant at the hearing was not sure when the property manager entered the apartment unlawfully. The property manager does not admit entering the apartment unlawfully in the email. There is insufficient evidence to prove this claim. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties made an application for suppression. The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595381 — Leaks

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595381 — Leaks

Order

Reasons

Homes Standards?

Did the apartment comply with the requirements of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the apartment leak?

Did the landlord enter the house without giving proper notice?

Order

Reasons

Homes Standards?

Did the apartment comply with the requirements of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the apartment leak?

Did the landlord enter the house without giving proper notice?