What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4608569 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4608569?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Broken Toilet Cistern: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HH Report: $148.35 awarded to tenant; Compensation: lack of ventilation/ m…: $1,530.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: unsafe electrical supp…: $975.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608569?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10102936-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4608569 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4608569?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Broken Toilet Cistern: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HH Report: $148.35 awarded to tenant; Compensation: lack of ventilation/ m…: $1,530.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: unsafe electrical supp…: $975.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608569?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10102936-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 25 Kitchener Road, Sandringham, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4608569 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608569 — net $9,023.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: broken toilet cistern	$250.00	broken toilet cistern
Compensation: unsafe electrical supply	$975.00	unsafe electrical supply
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$100.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Compensation: lack of ventilation/ moisture/ mould	$1,530.00	lack of ventilation/ moisture/ mould
Compensation: HH Report	$148.35	HH Report
Exemplary damages: fail to maintain/ HH non compliance	$6,000.00	fail to maintain/ HH non compliance
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee
Net award	$9,023.79
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$9,023.79

The tenancy has ended and the tenant’s bond has been refunded.

The application names the respondents as Reliance Property Management Limited as Agent for Xin Ji and Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited as Agent for Xin Ji, the owner.

Representatives of both those property management companies attended the hearing by teleconference (at their request), along with [the tenant/s] who appeared in person.

The situation is somewhat complicated in that when the tenancy began on 12 January 2022, Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited managed the tenancy on behalf of the owner. On 19 April 2023, the property manager changed to Reliance Property Management Limited. A number of the issues span that change.

The tenancy agreement names the landlord as Xin Ji, although her address is given as c/- Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited.

As Ms Ji is named as the landlord in the agreement, it is appropriate that she be the respondent for the purposes of this Order. It is clear that throughout the tenancy both Reliance Property Management Limited and Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited were acting as her agents, so she is responsible for any claims arising from the tenancy. The Claims

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached her obligations by: a. failing to meet her obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. failing to ensure that the premises complied with Healthy Homes standards; and c. breaching the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. Repair /Maintenance and HH compliance issues

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and must ensure that the premises comply with Healthy Homes standards.

Breaching any of those obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 for each breach. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant says that the landlord breached those obligations because: a. the toilet cistern fell off the wall and was unusable for several days; b. the electrical reticulation was unsafe; c. The shower leaked; d. The premises were inadequately ventilated and subject to excessive mould growth; e. The floors were uneven and dangerous. Each of those issues is separately addressed below. Toilet

There is no dispute that the toilet cistern fell off the wall, making the toilet unusable. It is not suggested that the tenant was responsible.

The evidence shows that the tenant met his obligation to notify the landlord about the problem as soon as it occurred, on 15 June 2023. The following day the property manager sought the owner’s approval to have it repaired. After a quote was obtained the landlord approved the repair. The repair was completed on 19 June 2023.

There is no doubt that the tenant was caused considerable inconvenience by this issue, which was the landlord’s responsibility.

The tenant is entitled to compensation for the inconvenience caused during the period when he was paying full rent for premises without a working toilet. I fix that compensation at $50 per day from 15 June 2023 to 19 June 2023.

The landlord responded appropriately. I am satisfied that the delay in the toilet being fixed was not through fault on the landlord’s part. Electrical Issues

The tenant emailed the property manager on 20 June 2023, “... I'd like to redirect your attention to an urgent issue - the maintenance of the property fuse box which requires immediate attention (sounds and sparks have been happening very frequently).”

In the absence of a response, the tenant re sent that e-mail to the property manager on 29 June 2023.

On 3 July 2023 the tenant wrote, “I am writing to urgently follow up on the ongoing issue that I have been attempting to resolve over the past six weeks- the defective fuse box at my property. Despite my initial notification and subsequent 14 day notice to remedy issued a fortnight ago, the problem persists and nothing seems to be done. The fuse box continues to emit popping sounds and sparks, which is not just disconcerting but also an immediate safety concern. The issue seems to be particularly pronounced during stormy weather with instances of sparks and popping noises occurring in quick succession. This development is deeply distressing instigating significant anxiety for me, making it difficult to live peacefully in my own home A further concern was raised yesterday by an Uber Eats delivery driver who to my alarm reported witnessing sparks from outside of the property. Upon reflection I recalled drawing attention to the potential risk posed by the trees adjacent to the property during an inspection conducted by Gralin. These trees come into contact with the property and appeared to brush against the overhead electrical wires connected to the main lines. Regrettably no action was taken to address this issue at the time by the landlord.... I would greatly appreciate an update on your planned course of action to address this matter along with an assurance of its timely resolution.”

The tenant wrote to the property manager again on 15 September 2023, “I have expressed several times my concerns about the fuse box and how much distress the situation causes. In the past the team at Reliance has said the electrician did not class it as an emergency and thus it has not been fixed yet. It's been several months now and nothing has been done to remedy the situation. The situation is urgent. It causes banging/ popping sounds every time it gets windy and rainy. It does it frequently during storming weather. It is inconsistent and difficult to capture on camera. I managed to get footage of the sparks happening from the outside the house (this also happens inside the house). This needs to be fixed urgently as I’ve mentioned several times, it could result in a house fire and it causes me anxiety knowing this. Please let me know what is being done to remedy this urgent situation after viewing the attached video file”.

On 17 September 2023 the power went out at 11:00 PM. The tenant phoned [Electricity distributor] who we were unable to reconnect the line because of the proximity of trees to the power lines. [Electricity distributor] disconnected the lines to three other houses.

On 18 September 2023 the tenant txt the property manager, “Hi, you have acted too late and I've had to order someone to come out to deal with it as it is was a severe hazard mentioned over months and affected the whole line of flats last night by cutting power to everyone. An arborist is here to resolve the power line. An electrician is yet to be ordered, I will contact [Electricity distributor] after arborist leaves and ask what needs to be done for the line to be restored.”

The property manager brought in an electrician to reconnect the line after the arborist had finished. That was completed around 2:00pm on 18 September 2023. The landlord reimbursed the tenant for the arborist’s charges.

I find this to be a clear and fundamental view failure by the landlord to meet its obligation to keep the premises n a reasonable state of repair. The cause of the issue was the landlord’s failure to maintain the trees and keep them trimmed away from the power line. The tenant raised that issue with the property manager as well as notifying the property manager about the symptoms – popping sounds and sparks etc.

I accept the tenant’s evidence that the potential danger from the problem along with the landlord’s ongoing failure to properly address the issue, will have had a considerable impact on the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises over that period. The tenant had to regularly follow up on his concerns, without result, formalise those concerns by issuing a 14 day notice, with no result, and ultimately had to himself arrange and pay for appropriate remediation work to be done – albeit reimbursed by the landlord.

The tenant is entitled to compensation, as well having those costs reimbursed. I consider that $75.00 per week for the period from 20 June 2023 to 19 September 2023 would be fair compensation for the effect of that issue on his use and enjoyment of the premises. Ventilation

Before the tenancy began, a healthy homes assessment by [Assessor 1] had found the premises were not compliant because there was no extractor fan in the kitchen.

The healthy homes statement attached to the agreement notes, “The [kitchen] fan does not vent to outdoor”

The landlord arranged for an additional kitchen extractor to be installed after the tenancy began. [Assessor 1] issued a healthy homes compliance report dated 14 March 2022 stating that the premises were compliant and that the premises had a kitchen extractor fan vented to the outdoors.

The tenant’s evidence, which I find to be reliable, is that the [Assessor 1] compliance report was issued without it having reinspected the premises and was based on the landlord’s provision of evidence showing the purchase of the extractor unit and venting kit.

On 11 May 2023 the tenant noted, “...also the ventilation is really poor and things are going mouldy quick because the vent as you saw doesn't really vent out kitchen steam...”

Throughout the tenancy the tenant continued to raise concerns about the adequacy of the kitchen ventilation and the resulting moisture and mould caused in the premises, including by way of a 14-day notice to remedy.

The tenant then arranged a Healthy Homes assessment of his own. The report from [Assessor 2] which is dated 16 November 2023 records several non- compliance issues which are noted below. As regards the kitchen ventilation, the report notes that the premises do not meet the Healthy Homes ventilation standard as, “The existing kitchen range hood was functional but was not ducted externally. However, the additional extractor fan was nearly two metres far from the cook top which is not reasonably practical as it won't do the suction properly.”

I find it proved on balance that the landlord failed to meet its obligation to ensure that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes ventilation standard.

Throughout the tenancy, the tenant raised concerns about the ineffectiveness of the kitchen extractor and the effects of excess moisture and mould in the premises. I find those issues are more likely than not to have been contributed to by the landlord’s failure to provide compliant extraction.

The tenant has provided a copy of a letter from his co-tenant [The co-tenant] to Gralin dated 10 October 2022. That letter requests that she be taken off the agreement and says: “The house has been a major contributing factor towards my diminishing health, as I'm sure you remember our concerned emails earlier this year, and I can't afford for my health’s sake to stay there a moment longer. Some of these issues include: • hard uneven floor through the house which has been causing joint problems and my ankles and hips have deteriorated to the point I can no longer run without pain. I'm 27 years old and this has never been a problem for me before this house and this floor. I work from home so there is no escaping it. • Must be hidden mould problems because I'm very sick inside that house even with windows open and feels fine everywhere else I go. Some of my furniture and picture frames have begun to develop mould which had never has in any other house. This is a very serious issue.”

[The co-tenant] was not called as a witness and that must be taken into account in giving weight to the content of that letter. It is however a contemporary record of her concerns, prepared well before these proceedings were begun and in my view it provides some corroboration of the tenant’s evidence about those deficiencies in the premises.

The [Assessor 2] Healthy Homes report also assesses the premises as non compliant with Healthy Homes drainage and moisture ingress standards due to lack of maintenance causing issues with the gutters and down pipes which were obstructed and also with draught stopping standards. I find it proved on balance that in those respects as well, the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes standards which likely contributed to the dampness and mould issues which the tenant continue to raise with the property managers throughout the tenancy.

For the rent the tenant paid, he was entitled to be living in premises that were compliant with Healthy Home standards. They weren’t and the tenant is entitled to compensation for having to live with the issues cause by the non-compliance.

While it is necessarily a generalised award, and allowing for the likelihood that dampness and mould will have been a greater problem during Winter than Summer months, I fix compensation at three week’s rent for those issues.

The tenant incurred the cost of obtaining a Healthy Homes assessment report. That was a direct result of the landlord’s breach of the obligation to ensure the premises complied with Healthy Homes standards and the tenant is entitled to be compensated for that cost. Shower

The tenant raised an issue with a leaking shower and the speed with which it was fixed.

I do not find that the evidence presented proves a loss or entitlement to compensation. Floors

Throughout the tenancy the tenant raised with the landlord concerns about the unevenness of the floor and the hazard that it posed. A 14-day notice to remedy it was issued.

The owner deemed those issues not to require immediate attention.

The tenant has provided evidence in the form of a letter from his doctor noting concerns raised by the tenant about the effect of the uneven floor on his joints. Similar concerns are noted in the letter from [The co-tenant].

I have no reason to doubt the tenant’s evidence about the floor of the premises being somewhat uneven or of the tenant’s concerns about the implications for his joint health.

The tenant has provided an e-mail from [Flooring company] which reads: “I called round to the above property on the 29th August 2023 to measure for carpet and assess the subfloor, at your request. The subfloor is uneven in several places but as mentioned on the day until the existing floors been uplifted there is no way of telling the exact cause of this the extent of potential damage is damage or works need to be done to rectify this. I did not complete a measure for new carpet or submitted quotation as this needs to be approved by the homeowner.”

Without evidence about the extent and nature of that unevenness and appropriate remediation measures, and without evidence proving a link between “a subfloor that is uneven in several places” and loss or damage to the tenant, on balance I do not find it proved that the tenant is entitled to compensation for a breach of the landlord’s obligations in that regard.

Should Exemplary damages be awarded?

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.

I have found that the landlord has breached her obligations to ensure that the premises were kept in a reasonable state of repair and complied with Healthy Homes standards.

I have noted my finding that the landlord responded appropriately to the problem with the toilet cistern.

The tenant repeatedly brought concerns about the other matters noted above to the landlord’s attention, so the breach must have been intentional.

The property manager says that in each case it was relying on 3rd party information ie. the [Assessor 1] report saying that the premises were Healthy Homes compliant and the electrician’s indication that while the fuse box in the premises I was old and could do with replacement, no immediate issue with the electrical system was identified.

While in many cases a landlord would be entitled to reply on such opinions, looking at the evidence in this case as a whole, it seems clear to me that legitimate issues were repeatedly raised by the tenant but were repeatedly discounted or minimised by the landlord and or property managers.

The tenant repeatedly said that the kitchen extractor was inadequate and that the premises suffered from mould and showed the property manager why those concerns were held. The tenant was proved correct.

The tenant repeatedly raised concerns about the electrical supply to the premises, including helpful detail about the conditions when the problem was apparent. He identified to the property manager a concern about the trees affecting the lines. Again, nothing was done and the tenant’s concerns were proved justified – after a major incident.

It seems to be very likely that had the tenant’s legitimate concerns, properly raised by the tenant, first informally and then through formal 14-day notices, been taken seriously and properly investigated, they would have been identified and addressed. Instead, the tenant had to continue putting up with the worry and consequences of those issues as well as the considerable frustration of having to try and get something done about them.

In the circumstances. I can only assume the landlord’s motivation to have been to avoid the cost of having those issues properly investigated and of any resulting remediation.

The consequences for the tenant were significant and ongoing.

I consider that a significant award of exemplary damages would be just. Breach of right to quiet enjoyment

Section 38 RTA provides that “(1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.”

The evidence does not prove harassment by the landlord so here is no basis for considering an award of exemplary damages.

The evidence does establish an instance where, after making arrangements for a property inspection to be carried out and the tenant taking time to ensure he could be present, nobody arrived, without any notice to the tenant.

The evidence satisfies me that on another occasion, on 5 May 2023 a representative of the property manager arrived at the premises after a notice of inspection had been sent to an incorrect e-mail address. Notwithstanding the tenant’s explanation that he had been given no notice of the visit, the representative demanded that he enter the premises.

The first incident where nobody turned up to do the inspection, without telling the tenant, was disrespectful, but I do not find it, of itself, gives grounds for compensation.

The second incident, where entry into the premises was demanded where here was no right to do so, constituted a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. A modest award of compensation is appropriate.

Because [The tenant/s] has succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608569 — net $9,023.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: broken toilet cistern	$250.00	broken toilet cistern
Compensation: unsafe electrical supply	$975.00	unsafe electrical supply
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$100.00	breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Compensation: lack of ventilation/ moisture/ mould	$1,530.00	lack of ventilation/ moisture/ mould
Compensation: HH Report	$148.35	HH Report
Exemplary damages: fail to maintain/ HH non compliance	$6,000.00	fail to maintain/ HH non compliance
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee
Net award	$9,023.79
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$9,023.79