What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4617509 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 4617509?

Compensation: Curtains: $580.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Net Curtains: $394.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617509?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9532420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4617509 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 4617509?

Compensation: Curtains: $580.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Net Curtains: $394.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617509?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9532420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

43 Magma Crescent, Stonefields, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4617509 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617509 — net $1,444.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Curtains	$580.00	Curtains
Compensation: Net Curtains	$394.00	Net Curtains
Exemplary damages: Breach of landlord obligations at start of tenancy	$450.00	Breach of landlord obligations at start of tenancy
Net award	$1,444.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,444.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617509 — net $1,444.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Curtains	$580.00	Curtains
Compensation: Net Curtains	$394.00	Net Curtains
Exemplary damages: Breach of landlord obligations at start of tenancy	$450.00	Breach of landlord obligations at start of tenancy
Net award	$1,444.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,444.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 25 October 2023: a. Window stays installed in the upstairs bedroom windows b. Keys to security locks on sliding door and windows c. Purchase and install new rangehood d. Waste master buffer replacement
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 2 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The landlord must reimburse the tenants for the cost of the replacement curtains and net curtains as set out in the table below.
Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agents For Ayun Sik Yang & Jung Ran Yun Ling Gao must pay [The tenant/s] $1,444.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant also claims that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Home standards at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant wants the problems fixed.
The premises are a two-level house with 4 bedrooms upstairs. The tenants 9- year-old daughter occupies one of the upstairs bedrooms.
The tenants say that the property was rented in an unsatisfactory state. The maintenance issues raised by the tenants at the start of the tenancy have taken several months to resolve.
On 31 May 2023 the tenants asked the landlord to provide an updated property inspection report. They say the landlord did not respond. During the hearing they stated that they had not been provided with a copy of an amended inspection report.
During the hearing the tenants provided an updated list of maintenance issues. These issues are as follows: a. A change of code for the house alarm b. Window stays to be installed on the upstairs bedroom windows c. Keys to the security locks on the sliding door and windows d. Rangehood replacement e. Waste master buffer replacement f. Backyard water accumulation g. Reimbursement for curtain replacement expense.
I do not intend going into detail in respect of each maintenance issue. The global issue complained of by the tenants has been the frustration dealing with the landlord for failing to address issues as required. They say that one example was the gas hob not igniting and that the landlord responded by offering them a lighter. It was not until they asked that it be checked for safety that it was repaired.
The tenants also raised the issue of the missing end on the heated towel rail in the main bathroom used by their 8-year-old daughter. They expressed their safety concern to the landlord and asked for it to be repaired. The landlord responded by stating that the issue was recorded and that they would not hold the tenant liable for it. It was eventually repaired on 13 June 2023 by an electrician who happened to be there fixing some lights.
The tenants’ chief complaint is that they are meeting their obligations by raising maintenance issues however the landlord has failed to meet their responsibilities by ensuring maintenance issues are attended to in a timely manner. They feel that their requests for maintenance are either ignored or the refused.
At the beginning of the tenancy the tenants raised a number of maintenance issues that they believed were also safety issues.
The tenants say that the rangehood was not working at the start of the tenancy. The landlord was advised by a service technician on 29 August 2023 that the rangehood would need to be replaced due to the age of the appliance and lack of availability of parts. During the hearing the landlord advised that a new rangehood has now been ordered as of 20 September 2023. It was further confirmed during the hearing that the new rangehood would be installed within the next week.
The tenants claim that they were not provided with keys for the ranch slider and window deadlocks. The landlord advised during the hearing that they do not have keys to those locks.
The tenants also claim that the premises did not meet the required Healthy Home standards at the start of the tenancy. They expressed their concern regarding the landlord’s belief that they had 120 days from the start of the tenancy to comply. The tenants claim that because the property has been previously rented the 120 days started from the earlier tenancy. They say it does not restart each time a new tenancy begins.
A further claim by the tenants relates to the condition of the curtains and net curtains at the start of the tenancy. One of the first things they noticed was the state of the curtains in the living areas. They say that the inspection report confirming the satisfactory condition of the curtains was not accurate. They claim that the net curtains were extremely dusty, mouldy and ripped. The curtains had mould and mildew present on both the inside and outside of the curtains. Many of the curtains had hems falling down and were not hanging correctly on the curtain rail.
On 17 May 2023 the tenants emailed the landlord raising the issue of the curtains. They advised the landlord that the curtains had mould on both sides and that they were not in a satisfactory condition. They asked the landlord to come and view the property as soon as possible so that they could see the issues themselves. The tenants say that this did not happen.
The tenants ended up replacing the curtains in their daughter’s room due to her history of asthma. They did this at their own expense. The curtains had significant mould both inside and outside. Her bedroom is the smallest room in the house and there are two curtains directly behind her bedhead and one to the right of her bed.
After a meeting with the landlord the tenants were subsequently advised that the net curtains could be removed and thrown away. The net curtains could not be cleaned and were at the end of their useful life.
The landlord also advised the tenants that they could take down the curtains and install their own. The property manager also provided calculations to the landlord for new curtains. This caused the tenants to believe that they would be reimbursed for replacing the curtains. On 31 May the tenants provided the landlord with copies of receipts for reimbursement of the nets and curtains. On 2 June the tenants were advised by the landlord that they would not be reimbursed for the nets and curtains as they were in satisfactory condition.
The tenants further claim that the property was not smoke alarm compliant at the start of the tenancy. They say that the only smoke alarm in the house was on the first floor outside the bedrooms. This was despite the tenancy agreement recording that there were two smoke alarms at the property. The initial Healthy Homes assessment report confirmed this.
The tenants also raised security issues with the property relating to locks and unauthorised visits by the owner. The tenants also insist that the alarm code should be changed at the landlord’s expense.
The tenant also provided a statement from a former tenant which I have considered. The statement highlights several shortcomings with the earlier tenancy.
The tenants also seek a rent reduction in respect of the issues raised. Landlord’s Response:
The landlord was initially reluctant to remedy some of the maintenance issues. The Rangehood:
The property manager advised the tenants that the owner did not want to replace the rangehood. Instead, he would clean it as required. The landlord stated during the hearing that this would now be replaced installed the following week. The Curtains: The owner does not agree to reimburse the tenants for the replacement curtains. It was also the belief of the landlord that the net curtains were in reasonable condition. Backyard Water Accumulation:
During the hearing the tenant and landlord agreed to monitor the situation in respect of water accumulation in the corner of the backyard Window and Sliding Door Security Locks, Window Stays ad alarm code:
During the hearing the landlord agreed to arrange for new keys for the sliding door and window dead bolts and stays for the upstairs bedroom windows. The landlord also agreed to have the locksmith look at changing the alarm code. Waste master buffer:
The landlord has agreed to arrange for a replacement waste master buffer. Analysis and Findings:
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

[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 the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
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.
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.
Where problems are known but there is a failure to remedy, the unlawful act is intentional. There has been significant publicity about Healthy Home standards which a diligent landlord could be expected to know about. The effect of the failure to maintain significantly affected the tenants’ enjoyment and possibly the health of one of the tenants. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with the law relating to tenancies so that living conditions for tenants are healthy and safe.
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
I am satisfied that the failure to provide the premises in a satisfactory condition at the start of the tenancy was intentional. The evidence confirming that the property was not ready to rent is abundantly clear. Whilst I acknowledge the steps and expenses the landlord took to remedy some of the issues nothing alters the fact that the majority of these issues should have been addressed prior to the tenants moving into the property. And because of this the landlord was constantly on the 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 back foot reacting to requests for repairs and maintenance rather than being proactive prior to the start of the tenancy.
I have also been provided with a copy of the Healthy Homes assessment report dated 6 June 2023. This report highlights a significant number of shortcomings with the premises. The shortcomings, inter alia, included insulation and smoke alarms. The landlord’s view that the Healthy Homes timeframe ‘restarted’ at the beginning of this tenancy was flawed.
I acknowledge that the house now complies with the Healthy Homes requirements as confirmed by way of a Certificate of Compliance from Oncore Limited. This was provided by the landlord during the hearing.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It should be noted that the landlord’s obligation in section 46(1) is to provide only “reasonably secure” premises not completely secure premises. If the requirement was for completely secure premises, then that would require a lock change after every tenancy. The same would apply to the alarm access code.
Having considered the evidence provided in support of the application I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I am also satisfied that the landlord either knew or ought to have known about the deficiencies with the property when the current tenants moved in.
The evidence in respect of the curtains confirms that they were not in an acceptable state at the start of the tenancy. The photographs provided by the tenants clearly show the curtains to be in an unacceptable state. They were ripped in places and covered in mould and mildew. I allow this claim and order reimbursement accordingly. In my view this is a reasonable expense incurred by the tenant. The tenant also provided ample notice to the landlord that these needed replacing.
The landlord has failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I find they have committed an unlawful act. Rent Reduction:
I have considered the tenants’ claim for a rent reduction. This claim is dismissed. The tenants had full use of the premises notwithstanding the shortcomings of the property. I acknowledge the tenants’ frustration and inconvenience dealing with the landlord however in my view they have not suffered a loss of amenity to a level justifying compensation in this regard.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant has applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617509 — Exemplary damages at 43 Magma Crescent, Stonefields, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617509 — Exemplary damages at 43 Magma Crescent, Stonefields, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions