What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627516 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 4627516?

Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Shower: $130.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Bills: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627516?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9417954-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627516 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 4627516?

Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Shower: $130.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Bills: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627516?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9417954-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 The Anchorage, Whitby, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627516 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

11 The Anchorage, Whitby, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627516 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627516 — net $3,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to provide clean	$500.00	failure to provide clean
Compensation: power bills	$300.00	power bills
Exemplary damages: breach s45(1)(b)(bb)RTA	$1,500.00	breach s45(1)(b)(bb)RTA
Compensation: lack of shower	$130.00	lack of shower
Compensation: cleaning, rubbish removal	$200.00	cleaning, rubbish removal
Compensation: stress	$750.00	stress
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,400.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,400.44

Claims and awards for application 4627516 — net $3,400.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: failure to provide clean

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failure to provide clean

Compensation: power bills

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: power bills

Exemplary damages: breach s45(1)(b)(bb)RTA

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach s45(1)(b)(bb)RTA

Compensation: lack of shower

Amount: $130.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: lack of shower

Compensation: cleaning, rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: cleaning, rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rubbish Removal Compensation Exemplary damages Cleanliness Filing Fee

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 within the following time frames: a. The table tennis table and outside debris is to be removed within two weeks of this order. b. The conservatory window which creates a draught is to be investigated within three weeks of this order, and the draught stopped or mitigated if possible. c. The central heating system is to be checked within three weeks of this order if it has not been serviced within the preceding year, and clear instructions provided to the tenants on its use.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 2 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2000. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Helen Leatherby must pay [The tenant/s] $3,400.44 immediately in accordance with the following table:

Reasons

These matters relate to an ongoing fixed-term tenancy which commenced in March 2023 and unfortunately has faced some issues. The tenants have applied for work orders, compensation and/or exemplary damages for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Their application for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy and associated costs was withdrawn at the hearing.
I discuss each claim separately below, however it is important to note that in the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are generally required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must prove that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. I also note that whilst I may not have referred explicitly to all the evidence presented in this matter, it has been considered in the forming of this decision.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA to: a. Provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 . b. Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 2 . c. Comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 3 1 S45(1)(a) of the RTA 2 S45(1)(b) of the RTA 3 S45(1)(bb) of the RTA
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 RTA.
By way of background, I note that the tenancy commenced on 10 March 2023 and a HHS report was obtained by the landlord on 2 February 2023. Was the premise provided reasonably clean and tidy 4 .
[The tenant/s] have established in evidence, and Ms Billing for the landlord agrees, that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy way. Ms Billing apologises but says she thought the issue had been dealt with as it had been agreed that the property would not have to be returned in a cleaner state at the end of the tenancy, than it was presented at the commencement. They had considered compensating [The tenant/s] however had not been provided with an amount of time they spent cleaning to make an assessment as to the appropriate amount of compensation. She leaves the issue of compensation to the Tribunal now.
[The tenant/s] say that it was extremely stressful and disappointing moving into the property to find it unclean, and they had to thoroughly clean every room before they brought belongings in, which took approximately two days. They say some areas are still not clean as they have not been able to get to everything. They say they felt let down by the landlords on the issue and had not had an apology until the hearing date. They felt Ms Lawrie (their original property manager) was not empathetic or apologetic for the situation and maintained that the property was reasonably clean and tidy even when shown evidence it was not.
They also say there were some items left behind by the owner that they wished to be removed; some of which they had to do themselves. They asked for them to be removed but Ms Lawrie said they would not be, and they would need to store them. [The tenant/s] say it was not so much that the items were left, but that no one discussed it with them, or asked them if they could remain there or even apologised for it that was most upsetting for them.
[The tenant/s] are also concerned they will be held responsible at the end of the tenancy for the cleanliness of the property to a standard higher than they received it. Ms Billing assures them they will not.
Ms Billing says the owner and a professional cleaner did clean the property prior to the tenancy but agrees it was not provided to the legislatively required standard. The photos show a general level of uncleanliness but in particular dirty carpets, marks on walls, dirty drains, dirty shelves, showers and windows. 4 S45(1)(a) of the RTA
The parties agree to a work order 5 for the landlord to remove the table tennis table and the outside debris left in a section of the garden as shown in the photos [The tenant/s] provided at the hearing. I note that the parties have agreed the chairs will be left at the property, but the tenants will not be responsible for them if they break.
As the landlord has breached section 45(1)(a) of the RTA by failing to provide the premise reasonably clean and tidy, 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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the intentional element of s109 has been met as Team Group Rentals are well aware of their obligations pursuant to the RTA. In an assessment of exemplary damages, I note the following: i. The ingoing inspection was clearly not completed appropriately which is surprising given the landlord is a well-established property management company. ii. I do accept that the landlord would have compensated the tenants for their time in cleaning had they been provided with an indication of the timing. iii. The landlords have taken some steps to rectifying the breach however the initial response to the tenants’ concerns was relatively dismissive. The lack of apology until the hearing was understandably upsetting for the tenants. iv. The evidence is that this breach started the tenancy off on the wrong foot and the parties’ communication deteriorated from there. The tenants held a level of distrust and disappointment in the landlords from the outset which coloured their relationship going forward. v. The property was not filthy but was not reasonably clean and tidy either. vi. It is in the public interest that rental properties are provided clean and tidy. Tenants are paying a substantial sum for their homes and are entitled to expect they are provided clean. It is also essential that landlords, particularly those who are professional property managers, ensure they comply with their obligations under the RTA. 5 Pursuant to 78(1)(e) of the RTA
Having assessed all of the relevant factors as discussed above, but particularly the relatively minor level of uncleanliness, I consider an award of $500 exemplary damages justified in the circumstances. The application for compensation is discussed below.

Was the premise maintained in a reasonable stated of repair?

[The tenant/s] are concerned about the length of time it took the landlord to deal with many of the issues of maintenance they were faced with from the very start of the tenancy. I discuss the main difficulties for them below. Unreasonable draughts in their bedroom
In the master bedroom of the property there is a window above the bed and a glassed area which is referred to as the conservatory (although it is part of the bedroom). The conservatory is separated from the rest of the room by a blind.
Days into the tenancy a window latch of one of the bedroom windows came off. This was repaired and [The tenant/s] told the trade at the time of draughts and issues with all the windows in the room. They had understood from the trade that he would return to deal with those other issues. When he did not, they followed up with Ms Lawrie and the trade returned to look again at the windows. A subsequent urgent issue arose when one of the glass panes slipped in its frame leaving a large gap. That was repaired.
The issue for [The tenant/s] however was that the problem of the draughts from the windows had not been dealt with. On 30 May, several months after Ms Lawrie had been first advised of the draughts, she again, upon further prompting from the tenants, instructed the trade to investigate but he had delays. This frustrated the tenants so much that they issued a 14-day Notice to remedy.
Almost two months later on 25 July a rubber seal was applied to the conservatory window which has helped considerably, however [The tenant/s] say there is still an unreasonable draught which can be seen and felt. They have provided photos of holes in the rubber seals where the windows meet the roofing glass. A video was also provided of the blind being blown by the draught since the repairs.
In summary there were a myriad of issues with the windows in the main bedroom from the commencement of the tenancy. The urgent ones were repaired relatively quickly however the fact that they were producing considerable draughts in the room was not dealt until 25 July. 6 S45(1)(b) of the RTA
[The tenant/s] say that the noise on windy nights was extreme due to the wind whistling in, and the room was very cold. They provided a sound recording of the draught to the landlord on 21 March and it was played at the hearing. The wind inside the closed-up room was extremely audible in this recording.
[The tenant/s] further consider that because of the draughts in their bedroom (and others discussed later) they suffered extremely high heating bills. [The tenant/s] says they expected a bill of about $400 per month given the size of the house, but not the $500-$600 they are receiving.
They say the main creator of the draughts was the conservatory window and that was not repaired until late July despite the landlord being aware from March. This was essentially the majority of winter. They feel their concerns were not taken seriously, for example at one stage they were told to use blutack to keep the blind from knocking in the draught while the issue itself was not addressed. The fact that the blind is heavy and yet moves with the draught is an indicator of the extent of the draught they say.
Ms Billing is confident they attended to all concerns within a reasonable time frame of being notified. She says they sent a work order immediately when notified of the latch and amended it to look at all windows in the bedroom several days later. That work was done on 3 April, and they thought this resolved the issues. She says they then did not hear anything from the tenants until an email on 26 May about the conservatory again. They issued a work order in response and the trade told them on 13 June that the work was complete.
They then had an inspection on 15 June and were told there was still a draught, so they issued a work order on 13 July to check the windows which was completed on 3 August. Ms Billing says she thought this had resolved the issue as she heard nothing further from the tenants until the hearing.
Ms Billing says this is a big two storied house on a north facing hill, so it is going to get lots of wind. She says they have done what they can and does not think there is a 3mm gap any longer. Despite this a work order has been agreed to investigate further as Ms Billing says they did not realise it was still an issue after 3 August.
Section 45 of the RTA details the landlord’s obligations to provide and maintain a premise in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age, and character of the premise and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. Furthermore, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Notably the HHS draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise within 120 days of a tenancy commencing.
The HHS report had noted that the property was free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps, therefore passed the draught stopping standard before the tenancy. This is perplexing given there were clearly draughts. The report is very brief on the issue. The fact that just one month later upon examination of just one area, two hinges, a window catch and backing rubber had to be replaced, let alone all the further work that was undertaken, makes it clear that the HHS report was not sufficiently thorough.
What is an “unreasonable” draught is not specifically defined but Regulation 2 of the HHS says that what must be taken into account is the size and location of the gap or hole, the extent of the draught/s, the likely impact of the draughts and other relevant matters. Tenancy Services has provided a ‘rule of thumb’ that an unreasonable draught is one over 3mm or one that a $2 coin could fit into.
The evidence, in particular the video and audio recordings and photos have established there were significant draughts in the main bedroom from the commencement of the tenancy until late July, a period of almost five months, and there is still a much smaller one. I consider that a draught that is sufficient to move a heavy blind or curtain and can be easily felt, is unreasonable. It is clearly allowing into the room an amount of air sufficient to lower the temperature, which is what the HHS is aiming to prevent.
There are two issues here, one with respect to maintenance and the other regarding compliance with the HHS.
In terms of the maintenance 7 It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
I am satisfied, particularly from looking at the emails from Ms Lawrie, that [The tenant/s] notified the landlord sufficiently of the draughts in all the windows in the bedroom in March. It was investigated by the landlord but not sufficiently resolved until July. It may not be sufficiently resolved at all, but that is an issue for the work order.
It is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure that their tenanted properties have maintenance issues addressed. This means that if an issue is raised by a tenant, as is their obligation, the landlord is required to investigate and then 7 S45(1)(b) resolve it if required. This means that once a landlord is aware of an issue, it is incumbent on them to follow it through to resolution. This is an active obligation and as such, should not involve assumptions. To be clear, a landlord should check with the tenant to ensure the issue is resolved from their perspective before they consider the job complete.
What appears to have happened here is that the issue of the draughts has been missed at the early stages, potentially because the more urgent issues of a broken latch and slipped glass pane were being dealt with.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has failed to address this issue of maintenance in a reasonable time frame. They have investigated and provided some repairs however they have not resolved the issue sufficiently and have failed to follow up with the tenants after the trades visit as I consider it is their obligation to do. Accordingly, I find that the landlord has breached s45(1)(b) of the RTA.
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was the 8 th of June. I therefore find the bedroom was not compliant with the HHS draught stopping standard by that date and therefore the landlord has breached s45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
I address redress below. Unreasonable draughts in the living room
[The tenant/s] say this is a similar issue in that they noticed gaps in the ranch slider in the lounge room and kitchen window in March and they were not fixed until 25 July. They had to follow up with Ms Lawrie many times they say which was frustrating. They say the thermostat for the central heating is in the lounge and was never able to heat the room to more than 19 degrees despite working continuously all the time.
Ms Billing had thought they had first been advised of the gaps in the living room doors by the tenants at the inspection on 15 June however accepts the evidence of an email from Ms Lawrie referencing the matter on 31 March.
Accordingly, I find it established that the tenants lived with unreasonable gaps in the living/kitchen area windows/doors from the start of the tenancy until 25 July. It is unclear why they were not addressed earlier by the landlord given they were aware since some time in March, and the trade attended the property a number of times.
I find, as above, that the landlord has breached ss45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA in failing to attend to these issues earlier.
A work order is to be made by consent for the central heating unit to be looked at. Because Ms Billing is unsure when it had previously been serviced, I note that if the owner can establish it has been recently 8 serviced, then they do not need to investigate further. However, if not, it should be checked and if necessary, serviced now.
[The tenant/s] also notes that they are not clear on exactly how to use it so the landlord should provide clear instructions on that. Blocked drain in the ensuite shower
From the first (and only) shower [The tenant/s] had in the ensuite she noticed that the drain was blocked. She advised Ms Lawrie on the 17 th of March and was told to put drain cleaner down it and visually check for any obstructions. They were reluctant to do so as they felt their concern was being dismissed, however after they reported it again on 15 June at the inspection and were told again to use drain cleaner, they did but it made no discernible difference.
There is an email from Ms Lawrie on 31 March saying she is waiting for the owner to choose a plumber and yet nothing further happened. A work order was submitted on 13 July by the landlord after [The tenant/s] chased them up again after the inspection. On 4 September the drain was cleared by the plumber.
Ms Billing says that after their first advice to use the drain cleaner, which was given because the owner, who had previously lived there, had no issues, they did not hear anything from the tenants so thought the issue resolved. When they were told at the inspection that it was not, they issued a work order, but the trade told them they had difficulty arranging a time with the tenants to come and do the work.
Ms Billing agrees that there has been a lack of communication from both sides but says they do not ignore maintenance issues and have a responsible owner who agrees to work needs.
The evidence establishes that [The tenant/s] have not had the use of this shower for the first four months of their tenancy despite the landlord being aware of a problem since the commencement. I do not consider Ms Lawrie’s response in telling them to try drain cleaner appropriate given a reasonably clean and tidy home (her obligation) would not involve a blocked drain. When notified, given it was so early into the tenancy, she should have investigated and rectified the issue immediately.
The evidence does show the tenants chasing the issue several times during the tenancy. I do not find it established in evidence that the tenants have delayed the process 8 Within the last 12 months
Accordingly, I find it established that the landlord has breached s45(1)(a) and(b) in this regard by failing to investigate and rectify the issue in a timely way. Redress is discussed below.

Have the HHS been breached?

As discussed above I find that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
I note that the ventilation standard was not complied with until 7 August, but I am satisfied that this was not from lack of trying on behalf of the landlord as it was delay issues related to the trades. Accordingly, although they did not comply with this standard within 120 days of the tenancy, I do not hold them responsible for the breach.
Also relevant is the moisture ingress and drainage standard which 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.
The gutter was noticed to be blocked on the HHS report (in February) and again at the inspection in June. It was cleaned on the day of the hearing; 6 September. This is clearly after the compliance date of 8 June with no reasoning other than it was mistakenly missed.
Accordingly, the landlord has committed an unlawful act in not complying with the HHSs within the required timeframe.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

I have found above that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in breaching s45 of the RTA with respect to the: a. Unreasonable gaps in the windows of the main bedroom. b. Unreasonable gaps in the ranch slider of the lounge. c. Blocked shower drain. d. Noncompliance with the draught stopping HHS standard. e. Noncompliance with the HHS drainage standard.
I consider these breaches intentional as the landlord is a property management company and therefore aware of their obligations pursuant to the RTA.
Therefore, in considering an award of exemplary damages and accordingly the factors of 109(3) RTA, I take into account the following factors: a. The landlord had obtained a HHS report that said (mistakenly) that there were no unreasonable draughts. They were entitled to rely on this to an extent. However, when the tenants started complaining about the issue and in particular providing evidence of the draughts, a more thorough investigation should have occurred. b. The landlord did instigate and pay for a number of attendances by the trade with respect to the windows. There is clear evidence of the property managers following up the trades. They therefore responded adequately for each notification. Where they failed in their obligation was in following up with the tenants to ensure their work had been successful, and focusing on the draughts as well as the other maintenance issues. c. The landlord has consented to the work orders I make, and I am satisfied that they are intending to do their best for these tenants. d. The trade appears to have said different things to [The tenant/s] than he has to the property managers. e. There was no adequate reason why the drain blockage was not investigated. The onus has been initially put on them to rectify it despite it being an issue from the commencement of the tenancy. f. I accept the failure to clear the drains was a genuine error. g. The effect on [The tenant/s] of all these breaches have been extensive. This has been discussed above but to add to those comments, I also note that the draughts have affected their sleep. They have lowered the temperature from what it should be in their bedroom and potentially the lounge which has in turn led to possibly higher heating bills. They have been so distressed by the way the tenancy has been run, that they were considering seeking alternative accommodation despite having a new-born child and a toddler and having intended on this tenancy being longstanding. h. I accept the landlord’s submission that the omissions have been mistakes and do not stem from an intent to make life difficult for the tenants or to shirk their responsibilities. i. It is clearly in the public interest for landlords, especially those familiar with the law as these ones are, to comply with their obligations under the RTA. It is even more so when the issues relate to whether a home is warm, dry and sanitary.
Considering those factors, I have determined that an award of $1500 exemplary damages, which is at the lower end of the scale, is justified in the circumstances. Compensation sought
[The tenant/s] claim the following compensation for the issues they have faced: a. A contribution to their high power bills. b. A reduction in rent of $150 per week for not being able to use the ensuite shower and living with the other maintenance issues. c. Compensation of $3000 for the stress and inconvenience. d. Compensation of $1000 for cleaning. e. Rubbish and debris removal compensation of $100
Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise, and a common sense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
Likewise however, as a matter of law, a tenant is not entitled to compensation for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered to the extent they did. If a landlord is not carrying out repairs, I would expect a tenant within a reasonable time to: a. serve a 14-day notice to remedy the breach on the landlord, b. or apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for a work order and compensation if the landlords failed to comply with the 14-day breach of duty notice.
The tenants did issue a 14-day notice on 30 May and did apply to the Tribunal on 16 July. Accordingly, whilst they could have followed up the landlord more regularly and communicated more clearly, I find they did take steps available to them.
Addressing the specific compensation claims I find as follows: a. Whilst there is no direct comparison as to how much [The tenant/s] power bills would have been had they not had the draughts they did, I find it more likely than not that having such draughts for all of winter would have increased their power bills. I consider an award of $300 reasonable compensation. b. Lack of amenity/rent reduction. I find that [The tenant/s] did not have access to the second shower for four months but in all other respects had full (if not perfect) amenity for the rent they paid. I agree the table tennis table has been in the way however this is a large house, and it does not take up a significant amount of space relative to the available space. For the lack of a second shower for 178 days I award $130 which equates roughly to a rent reduction of $5 per day. c. I consider $200 an appropriate amount of compensation in light of the evidence to reflect the cleaning [The tenant/s] had to undertake and the removal of the owner’s miscellaneous items.
Compensation for stress and inconvenience is a bit different. Section 77(2)(n) RTA does empower the Tribunal to make an award for general damages where a tenant or landlord breaches the provisions of the RTA. The damages are for “pain and suffering” or “emotional distress” 9 . However, there are limitations on the Tribunal’s ability to order general damages for such emotional injury and it is well established that where the loss suffered is intangible, awards must be kept modest. Some degree of anxiety and stress has been considered an inevitable corollary to rights based on promises, and a contracting party has traditionally been deemed to take the risk. Virtually any breach brings with it some degree of disappointment and upset, and almost every action could give rise to a claim for intangible loss. It is very difficult to put a price on an intangible, when it is not open to mathematical calculation, and requires some degree of subjective assessment and impression.
In Tenant v Singh (2022) NZTT 4315225 the Tribunal refers to the decision in Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 in setting out the appropriate bands where making awards for emotional harm damages: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.
I consider this a situation of inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment. Accordingly, I find an award of $750 justified in the circumstances. Filing fee 9 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (2020) NZDC 17667
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. The tenants seek suppression and as they have been substantially successful with their claims, I approve this application.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627516 — net $3,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to provide clean	$500.00	failure to provide clean
Compensation: power bills	$300.00	power bills
Exemplary damages: breach s45(1)(b)(bb)RTA	$1,500.00	breach s45(1)(b)(bb)RTA
Compensation: lack of shower	$130.00	lack of shower
Compensation: cleaning, rubbish removal	$200.00	cleaning, rubbish removal
Compensation: stress	$750.00	stress
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,400.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,400.44

Claims and awards for application 4627516 — net $3,400.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: failure to provide clean

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failure to provide clean

Compensation: power bills

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: power bills

Exemplary damages: breach s45(1)(b)(bb)RTA

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach s45(1)(b)(bb)RTA

Compensation: lack of shower

Amount: $130.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: lack of shower

Compensation: cleaning, rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: cleaning, rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rubbish Removal Compensation Exemplary damages Cleanliness Filing Fee

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 within the following time frames: a. The table tennis table and outside debris is to be removed within two weeks of this order. b. The conservatory window which creates a draught is to be investigated within three weeks of this order, and the draught stopped or mitigated if possible. c. The central heating system is to be checked within three weeks of this order if it has not been serviced within the preceding year, and clear instructions provided to the tenants on its use.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 2 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2000. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Helen Leatherby must pay [The tenant/s] $3,400.44 immediately in accordance with the following table:

Reasons

These matters relate to an ongoing fixed-term tenancy which commenced in March 2023 and unfortunately has faced some issues. The tenants have applied for work orders, compensation and/or exemplary damages for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Their application for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy and associated costs was withdrawn at the hearing.
I discuss each claim separately below, however it is important to note that in the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are generally required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must prove that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. I also note that whilst I may not have referred explicitly to all the evidence presented in this matter, it has been considered in the forming of this decision.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA to: a. Provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 . b. Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 2 . c. Comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 3 1 S45(1)(a) of the RTA 2 S45(1)(b) of the RTA 3 S45(1)(bb) of the RTA
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 RTA.
By way of background, I note that the tenancy commenced on 10 March 2023 and a HHS report was obtained by the landlord on 2 February 2023. Was the premise provided reasonably clean and tidy 4 .
[The tenant/s] have established in evidence, and Ms Billing for the landlord agrees, that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy way. Ms Billing apologises but says she thought the issue had been dealt with as it had been agreed that the property would not have to be returned in a cleaner state at the end of the tenancy, than it was presented at the commencement. They had considered compensating [The tenant/s] however had not been provided with an amount of time they spent cleaning to make an assessment as to the appropriate amount of compensation. She leaves the issue of compensation to the Tribunal now.
[The tenant/s] say that it was extremely stressful and disappointing moving into the property to find it unclean, and they had to thoroughly clean every room before they brought belongings in, which took approximately two days. They say some areas are still not clean as they have not been able to get to everything. They say they felt let down by the landlords on the issue and had not had an apology until the hearing date. They felt Ms Lawrie (their original property manager) was not empathetic or apologetic for the situation and maintained that the property was reasonably clean and tidy even when shown evidence it was not.
They also say there were some items left behind by the owner that they wished to be removed; some of which they had to do themselves. They asked for them to be removed but Ms Lawrie said they would not be, and they would need to store them. [The tenant/s] say it was not so much that the items were left, but that no one discussed it with them, or asked them if they could remain there or even apologised for it that was most upsetting for them.
[The tenant/s] are also concerned they will be held responsible at the end of the tenancy for the cleanliness of the property to a standard higher than they received it. Ms Billing assures them they will not.
Ms Billing says the owner and a professional cleaner did clean the property prior to the tenancy but agrees it was not provided to the legislatively required standard. The photos show a general level of uncleanliness but in particular dirty carpets, marks on walls, dirty drains, dirty shelves, showers and windows. 4 S45(1)(a) of the RTA
The parties agree to a work order 5 for the landlord to remove the table tennis table and the outside debris left in a section of the garden as shown in the photos [The tenant/s] provided at the hearing. I note that the parties have agreed the chairs will be left at the property, but the tenants will not be responsible for them if they break.
As the landlord has breached section 45(1)(a) of the RTA by failing to provide the premise reasonably clean and tidy, 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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the intentional element of s109 has been met as Team Group Rentals are well aware of their obligations pursuant to the RTA. In an assessment of exemplary damages, I note the following: i. The ingoing inspection was clearly not completed appropriately which is surprising given the landlord is a well-established property management company. ii. I do accept that the landlord would have compensated the tenants for their time in cleaning had they been provided with an indication of the timing. iii. The landlords have taken some steps to rectifying the breach however the initial response to the tenants’ concerns was relatively dismissive. The lack of apology until the hearing was understandably upsetting for the tenants. iv. The evidence is that this breach started the tenancy off on the wrong foot and the parties’ communication deteriorated from there. The tenants held a level of distrust and disappointment in the landlords from the outset which coloured their relationship going forward. v. The property was not filthy but was not reasonably clean and tidy either. vi. It is in the public interest that rental properties are provided clean and tidy. Tenants are paying a substantial sum for their homes and are entitled to expect they are provided clean. It is also essential that landlords, particularly those who are professional property managers, ensure they comply with their obligations under the RTA. 5 Pursuant to 78(1)(e) of the RTA
Having assessed all of the relevant factors as discussed above, but particularly the relatively minor level of uncleanliness, I consider an award of $500 exemplary damages justified in the circumstances. The application for compensation is discussed below.

Was the premise maintained in a reasonable stated of repair?

[The tenant/s] are concerned about the length of time it took the landlord to deal with many of the issues of maintenance they were faced with from the very start of the tenancy. I discuss the main difficulties for them below. Unreasonable draughts in their bedroom
In the master bedroom of the property there is a window above the bed and a glassed area which is referred to as the conservatory (although it is part of the bedroom). The conservatory is separated from the rest of the room by a blind.
Days into the tenancy a window latch of one of the bedroom windows came off. This was repaired and [The tenant/s] told the trade at the time of draughts and issues with all the windows in the room. They had understood from the trade that he would return to deal with those other issues. When he did not, they followed up with Ms Lawrie and the trade returned to look again at the windows. A subsequent urgent issue arose when one of the glass panes slipped in its frame leaving a large gap. That was repaired.
The issue for [The tenant/s] however was that the problem of the draughts from the windows had not been dealt with. On 30 May, several months after Ms Lawrie had been first advised of the draughts, she again, upon further prompting from the tenants, instructed the trade to investigate but he had delays. This frustrated the tenants so much that they issued a 14-day Notice to remedy.
Almost two months later on 25 July a rubber seal was applied to the conservatory window which has helped considerably, however [The tenant/s] say there is still an unreasonable draught which can be seen and felt. They have provided photos of holes in the rubber seals where the windows meet the roofing glass. A video was also provided of the blind being blown by the draught since the repairs.
In summary there were a myriad of issues with the windows in the main bedroom from the commencement of the tenancy. The urgent ones were repaired relatively quickly however the fact that they were producing considerable draughts in the room was not dealt until 25 July. 6 S45(1)(b) of the RTA
[The tenant/s] say that the noise on windy nights was extreme due to the wind whistling in, and the room was very cold. They provided a sound recording of the draught to the landlord on 21 March and it was played at the hearing. The wind inside the closed-up room was extremely audible in this recording.
[The tenant/s] further consider that because of the draughts in their bedroom (and others discussed later) they suffered extremely high heating bills. [The tenant/s] says they expected a bill of about $400 per month given the size of the house, but not the $500-$600 they are receiving.
They say the main creator of the draughts was the conservatory window and that was not repaired until late July despite the landlord being aware from March. This was essentially the majority of winter. They feel their concerns were not taken seriously, for example at one stage they were told to use blutack to keep the blind from knocking in the draught while the issue itself was not addressed. The fact that the blind is heavy and yet moves with the draught is an indicator of the extent of the draught they say.
Ms Billing is confident they attended to all concerns within a reasonable time frame of being notified. She says they sent a work order immediately when notified of the latch and amended it to look at all windows in the bedroom several days later. That work was done on 3 April, and they thought this resolved the issues. She says they then did not hear anything from the tenants until an email on 26 May about the conservatory again. They issued a work order in response and the trade told them on 13 June that the work was complete.
They then had an inspection on 15 June and were told there was still a draught, so they issued a work order on 13 July to check the windows which was completed on 3 August. Ms Billing says she thought this had resolved the issue as she heard nothing further from the tenants until the hearing.
Ms Billing says this is a big two storied house on a north facing hill, so it is going to get lots of wind. She says they have done what they can and does not think there is a 3mm gap any longer. Despite this a work order has been agreed to investigate further as Ms Billing says they did not realise it was still an issue after 3 August.
Section 45 of the RTA details the landlord’s obligations to provide and maintain a premise in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age, and character of the premise and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. Furthermore, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Notably the HHS draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise within 120 days of a tenancy commencing.
The HHS report had noted that the property was free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps, therefore passed the draught stopping standard before the tenancy. This is perplexing given there were clearly draughts. The report is very brief on the issue. The fact that just one month later upon examination of just one area, two hinges, a window catch and backing rubber had to be replaced, let alone all the further work that was undertaken, makes it clear that the HHS report was not sufficiently thorough.
What is an “unreasonable” draught is not specifically defined but Regulation 2 of the HHS says that what must be taken into account is the size and location of the gap or hole, the extent of the draught/s, the likely impact of the draughts and other relevant matters. Tenancy Services has provided a ‘rule of thumb’ that an unreasonable draught is one over 3mm or one that a $2 coin could fit into.
The evidence, in particular the video and audio recordings and photos have established there were significant draughts in the main bedroom from the commencement of the tenancy until late July, a period of almost five months, and there is still a much smaller one. I consider that a draught that is sufficient to move a heavy blind or curtain and can be easily felt, is unreasonable. It is clearly allowing into the room an amount of air sufficient to lower the temperature, which is what the HHS is aiming to prevent.
There are two issues here, one with respect to maintenance and the other regarding compliance with the HHS.
In terms of the maintenance 7 It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
I am satisfied, particularly from looking at the emails from Ms Lawrie, that [The tenant/s] notified the landlord sufficiently of the draughts in all the windows in the bedroom in March. It was investigated by the landlord but not sufficiently resolved until July. It may not be sufficiently resolved at all, but that is an issue for the work order.
It is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure that their tenanted properties have maintenance issues addressed. This means that if an issue is raised by a tenant, as is their obligation, the landlord is required to investigate and then 7 S45(1)(b) resolve it if required. This means that once a landlord is aware of an issue, it is incumbent on them to follow it through to resolution. This is an active obligation and as such, should not involve assumptions. To be clear, a landlord should check with the tenant to ensure the issue is resolved from their perspective before they consider the job complete.
What appears to have happened here is that the issue of the draughts has been missed at the early stages, potentially because the more urgent issues of a broken latch and slipped glass pane were being dealt with.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has failed to address this issue of maintenance in a reasonable time frame. They have investigated and provided some repairs however they have not resolved the issue sufficiently and have failed to follow up with the tenants after the trades visit as I consider it is their obligation to do. Accordingly, I find that the landlord has breached s45(1)(b) of the RTA.
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was the 8 th of June. I therefore find the bedroom was not compliant with the HHS draught stopping standard by that date and therefore the landlord has breached s45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
I address redress below. Unreasonable draughts in the living room
[The tenant/s] say this is a similar issue in that they noticed gaps in the ranch slider in the lounge room and kitchen window in March and they were not fixed until 25 July. They had to follow up with Ms Lawrie many times they say which was frustrating. They say the thermostat for the central heating is in the lounge and was never able to heat the room to more than 19 degrees despite working continuously all the time.
Ms Billing had thought they had first been advised of the gaps in the living room doors by the tenants at the inspection on 15 June however accepts the evidence of an email from Ms Lawrie referencing the matter on 31 March.
Accordingly, I find it established that the tenants lived with unreasonable gaps in the living/kitchen area windows/doors from the start of the tenancy until 25 July. It is unclear why they were not addressed earlier by the landlord given they were aware since some time in March, and the trade attended the property a number of times.
I find, as above, that the landlord has breached ss45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA in failing to attend to these issues earlier.
A work order is to be made by consent for the central heating unit to be looked at. Because Ms Billing is unsure when it had previously been serviced, I note that if the owner can establish it has been recently 8 serviced, then they do not need to investigate further. However, if not, it should be checked and if necessary, serviced now.
[The tenant/s] also notes that they are not clear on exactly how to use it so the landlord should provide clear instructions on that. Blocked drain in the ensuite shower
From the first (and only) shower [The tenant/s] had in the ensuite she noticed that the drain was blocked. She advised Ms Lawrie on the 17 th of March and was told to put drain cleaner down it and visually check for any obstructions. They were reluctant to do so as they felt their concern was being dismissed, however after they reported it again on 15 June at the inspection and were told again to use drain cleaner, they did but it made no discernible difference.
There is an email from Ms Lawrie on 31 March saying she is waiting for the owner to choose a plumber and yet nothing further happened. A work order was submitted on 13 July by the landlord after [The tenant/s] chased them up again after the inspection. On 4 September the drain was cleared by the plumber.
Ms Billing says that after their first advice to use the drain cleaner, which was given because the owner, who had previously lived there, had no issues, they did not hear anything from the tenants so thought the issue resolved. When they were told at the inspection that it was not, they issued a work order, but the trade told them they had difficulty arranging a time with the tenants to come and do the work.
Ms Billing agrees that there has been a lack of communication from both sides but says they do not ignore maintenance issues and have a responsible owner who agrees to work needs.
The evidence establishes that [The tenant/s] have not had the use of this shower for the first four months of their tenancy despite the landlord being aware of a problem since the commencement. I do not consider Ms Lawrie’s response in telling them to try drain cleaner appropriate given a reasonably clean and tidy home (her obligation) would not involve a blocked drain. When notified, given it was so early into the tenancy, she should have investigated and rectified the issue immediately.
The evidence does show the tenants chasing the issue several times during the tenancy. I do not find it established in evidence that the tenants have delayed the process 8 Within the last 12 months
Accordingly, I find it established that the landlord has breached s45(1)(a) and(b) in this regard by failing to investigate and rectify the issue in a timely way. Redress is discussed below.

Have the HHS been breached?

As discussed above I find that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
I note that the ventilation standard was not complied with until 7 August, but I am satisfied that this was not from lack of trying on behalf of the landlord as it was delay issues related to the trades. Accordingly, although they did not comply with this standard within 120 days of the tenancy, I do not hold them responsible for the breach.
Also relevant is the moisture ingress and drainage standard which 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.
The gutter was noticed to be blocked on the HHS report (in February) and again at the inspection in June. It was cleaned on the day of the hearing; 6 September. This is clearly after the compliance date of 8 June with no reasoning other than it was mistakenly missed.
Accordingly, the landlord has committed an unlawful act in not complying with the HHSs within the required timeframe.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

I have found above that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in breaching s45 of the RTA with respect to the: a. Unreasonable gaps in the windows of the main bedroom. b. Unreasonable gaps in the ranch slider of the lounge. c. Blocked shower drain. d. Noncompliance with the draught stopping HHS standard. e. Noncompliance with the HHS drainage standard.
I consider these breaches intentional as the landlord is a property management company and therefore aware of their obligations pursuant to the RTA.
Therefore, in considering an award of exemplary damages and accordingly the factors of 109(3) RTA, I take into account the following factors: a. The landlord had obtained a HHS report that said (mistakenly) that there were no unreasonable draughts. They were entitled to rely on this to an extent. However, when the tenants started complaining about the issue and in particular providing evidence of the draughts, a more thorough investigation should have occurred. b. The landlord did instigate and pay for a number of attendances by the trade with respect to the windows. There is clear evidence of the property managers following up the trades. They therefore responded adequately for each notification. Where they failed in their obligation was in following up with the tenants to ensure their work had been successful, and focusing on the draughts as well as the other maintenance issues. c. The landlord has consented to the work orders I make, and I am satisfied that they are intending to do their best for these tenants. d. The trade appears to have said different things to [The tenant/s] than he has to the property managers. e. There was no adequate reason why the drain blockage was not investigated. The onus has been initially put on them to rectify it despite it being an issue from the commencement of the tenancy. f. I accept the failure to clear the drains was a genuine error. g. The effect on [The tenant/s] of all these breaches have been extensive. This has been discussed above but to add to those comments, I also note that the draughts have affected their sleep. They have lowered the temperature from what it should be in their bedroom and potentially the lounge which has in turn led to possibly higher heating bills. They have been so distressed by the way the tenancy has been run, that they were considering seeking alternative accommodation despite having a new-born child and a toddler and having intended on this tenancy being longstanding. h. I accept the landlord’s submission that the omissions have been mistakes and do not stem from an intent to make life difficult for the tenants or to shirk their responsibilities. i. It is clearly in the public interest for landlords, especially those familiar with the law as these ones are, to comply with their obligations under the RTA. It is even more so when the issues relate to whether a home is warm, dry and sanitary.
Considering those factors, I have determined that an award of $1500 exemplary damages, which is at the lower end of the scale, is justified in the circumstances. Compensation sought
[The tenant/s] claim the following compensation for the issues they have faced: a. A contribution to their high power bills. b. A reduction in rent of $150 per week for not being able to use the ensuite shower and living with the other maintenance issues. c. Compensation of $3000 for the stress and inconvenience. d. Compensation of $1000 for cleaning. e. Rubbish and debris removal compensation of $100
Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise, and a common sense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
Likewise however, as a matter of law, a tenant is not entitled to compensation for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered to the extent they did. If a landlord is not carrying out repairs, I would expect a tenant within a reasonable time to: a. serve a 14-day notice to remedy the breach on the landlord, b. or apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for a work order and compensation if the landlords failed to comply with the 14-day breach of duty notice.
The tenants did issue a 14-day notice on 30 May and did apply to the Tribunal on 16 July. Accordingly, whilst they could have followed up the landlord more regularly and communicated more clearly, I find they did take steps available to them.
Addressing the specific compensation claims I find as follows: a. Whilst there is no direct comparison as to how much [The tenant/s] power bills would have been had they not had the draughts they did, I find it more likely than not that having such draughts for all of winter would have increased their power bills. I consider an award of $300 reasonable compensation. b. Lack of amenity/rent reduction. I find that [The tenant/s] did not have access to the second shower for four months but in all other respects had full (if not perfect) amenity for the rent they paid. I agree the table tennis table has been in the way however this is a large house, and it does not take up a significant amount of space relative to the available space. For the lack of a second shower for 178 days I award $130 which equates roughly to a rent reduction of $5 per day. c. I consider $200 an appropriate amount of compensation in light of the evidence to reflect the cleaning [The tenant/s] had to undertake and the removal of the owner’s miscellaneous items.
Compensation for stress and inconvenience is a bit different. Section 77(2)(n) RTA does empower the Tribunal to make an award for general damages where a tenant or landlord breaches the provisions of the RTA. The damages are for “pain and suffering” or “emotional distress” 9 . However, there are limitations on the Tribunal’s ability to order general damages for such emotional injury and it is well established that where the loss suffered is intangible, awards must be kept modest. Some degree of anxiety and stress has been considered an inevitable corollary to rights based on promises, and a contracting party has traditionally been deemed to take the risk. Virtually any breach brings with it some degree of disappointment and upset, and almost every action could give rise to a claim for intangible loss. It is very difficult to put a price on an intangible, when it is not open to mathematical calculation, and requires some degree of subjective assessment and impression.
In Tenant v Singh (2022) NZTT 4315225 the Tribunal refers to the decision in Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 in setting out the appropriate bands where making awards for emotional harm damages: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.
I consider this a situation of inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment. Accordingly, I find an award of $750 justified in the circumstances. Filing fee 9 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (2020) NZDC 17667
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. The tenants seek suppression and as they have been substantially successful with their claims, I approve this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627516 — State of repair at 11 The Anchorage, Whitby, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627516 — State of repair at 11 The Anchorage, Whitby, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Was the premise maintained in a reasonable stated of repair?

Have the HHS been breached?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

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?

Was the premise maintained in a reasonable stated of repair?

Have the HHS been breached?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions