What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4635650 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address room

How much money was awarded in case 4635650?

Book: The Art Of War: $10.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Koha To Friends Who Helped Tenant Mo…: $58.96 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity – Premises Leaking 2…: $353.57 awarded to tenant; Mileage Costs For Move-Out: $24.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9728594-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4635650 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address room

How much money was awarded in case 4635650?

Book: The Art Of War: $10.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Koha To Friends Who Helped Tenant Mo…: $58.96 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity – Premises Leaking 2…: $353.57 awarded to tenant; Mileage Costs For Move-Out: $24.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9728594-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room [suppressed], 41A Leslie Avenue, Sandringham, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4635650 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635650. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Koha to friends who helped tenant move out	$58.96	Koha to friends who helped tenant move out
Mileage costs for move-out	$24.00	Mileage costs for move-out
Loss of amenity – premises leaking 26/06 – 10/07/23	$353.57	Loss of amenity – premises leaking 26/06 – 10/07/23
Book: The Art of War	$10.00	Book: The Art of War
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address room number must not be published.
Sandringham Lodge Limited must pay [the tenant] $466.97 immediately, as calculated in the table below. DescriptionTenant Koha to friends who helped tenant move out$58.96 Mileage costs for move-out$24.00 Loss of amenity – premises leaking 26/06 – 10/07/23 Book: The Art of War $353.57
00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$466.97

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing for himself.
Jasmeet Singh, the lodge manager, attended for the landlord.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises and seeks compensation and exemplary damages. Background
The tenancy began on 22 July 2022. The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. The premises consisted of a large studio-type room with a bed, desk, and fridge among other things, and a bathroom.
The lodge has 90 rooms and is professionally run. The tenant is an industrious young man, who lived quietly at the premises without complaint until these events.
On 26 June 2023, almost a year after the tenancy began, the tenant was woken in the early hours of the morning by water dripping down a wall onto a plastic bag.
He had to leave for work early that morning but reported the problem to Mr Singh later that day. Mr Singh and the tenant went to the premises to assess the situation. At that point, there was no active dripping, and Mr Singh’s assessment was that the dripping water must be due to condensation, a recurring winter issue.
The dripping returned, however. The tenant says: So throughout that week I just kept mopping/soaking up the dripping with my towels. It was definitely a hassle, including having to pay more to do the extra laundry, but it hadn’t really worsened that much – just the same slow drip...
Then on 3 July 2023, the tenant noticed that the bathroom floor was wet which he presumed to be due to the toilet leaking. He reported the leak to Mr Singh who again put the situation down to condensation and gave the tenant a moisture absorber to place on the floor.
The next day the tenant found that the bathroom floor was even wetter. At Mr Singh’s request, the tenant sent Mr Singh a video of the water pooling on the floor.
On 7 July 2023, two plumbers attended and attempted to fix the leaking toilet. While they were there, the plumbers noticed the bathroom light was not working and water was leaking through the ceiling light fitting.
The plumbers investigated the cause of the leak, opining (incorrectly) there was a leak in the roof.
The tenant says he was finding it increasingly unpleasant to stay in the premises because of the ceiling and toilet leaks and the associated musty odour. He stayed at a friend’s home that weekend.
By Monday 10 July 2023, the ceiling leaks had significantly worsened. There were now four ceiling leaks. Mr Singh and the tenant agree the premises were uninhabitable.
The tenant had to move out immediately. He had to move to his grandmother’s house. To make matters worse, the tenant badly sprained his ankle at work that day so moving out at such short notice was exceedingly difficult to do. Luckily, his friends and family helped him move at short notice.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable standard of repair? b. Is the landlord liable to compensation the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

Under s 66I(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords of boarding must ensure the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 66I Landlord’s ongoing obligations (1) The landlord of a boarding house must, at all times,— (a) ... (b) ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 1 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), Schedule 1A.
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair such defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 2 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: 3 “...the obligation of the landlord...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...”
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 4 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Discussion
The tenant first raised concerns about water dripping down a wall with Mr Singh on 26 June 2023. However, when Mr Singh investigated the issue that day, water was not actively dripping, and he concluded the dripping was probably due to excessive condensation.
However, the tenant had lived at the premises for almost a year and so was well placed to assess whether condensation was implicated. After the tenancy ended, the landlord’s repair contractors discovered a leaking copper pipe. Water from the leak was entering the ceiling of the premises.
Mr Singh’s view is that the pipe leaked suddenly and catastrophically, and the earlier dripping was due to condensation. I find it more likely that the copper pipe leak rather than condensation caused the dripping on 26 June 2023. The pipe leak probably worsened over the next week or so, finally making the premises uninhabitable altogether.
I find the landlord failed to repair the premises within a reasonable time. Leaks to premises of this kind should be addressed urgently. The leak was not addressed promptly because Mr Singh misdiagnosed the cause of the dripping water. He had acquired the knowledge of the dripping water from the tenant’s 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 4 See n 2. report. That was sufficient knowledge to trigger the landlord’s obligation to repair.
It follows, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Exemplary damages?

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. 5
However, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the premises intentionally. Mr Singh visited the premises but honestly believed that excess condensation was the cause. It was only afterwards contractors discovered the pipe was leaking.
Mr Singh acted competently and professionally. His misdiagnosis of the cause of the leak was understandable. It was a “but for the grace of God go I” mistake. After the premises were rendered uninhabitable, Mr Singh did his best to find the tenant somewhere else in the building to live and offered the premises back to the tenant after they were repaired.
The tenant does not dispute that the landlord actions were unintentional.
Because I am not satisfied the unlawful act was caused intentionally, the Tribunal cannot entertain an order for exemplary damages.

Compensation?

Although, there was no intention, I still consider that there was a failure to maintain.
The premises’ ceiling leaked from 26 June 2023. The leak was initially small and intermittent. By 9 July 2023, the leaks were constant and so large that the premises were uninhabitable.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that he stayed away from the premises because of the leaks and the dank odour coming from the bathroom. He was genuinely concerned that the leak through the bathroom’s light fitting could have led to him being electrocuted. The leaks affected his sleep and caused him significant stress and inconvenience. 5 RTA, s 109(3)
The tenant’s loss of amenity was only partial on 26 June 2023 but had become total by 9 July 2023. I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity using a broad brush. 6 I consider a 50 per cent rent reduction for the period of 26 June to 10 July 2023 fairly represents the tenant’s overall loss of amenity for the period. That amounts to $353.57.
The tenant also spent almost $60.00 on KFC as koha for his friends and family who pitched in to help him move out. I consider that cost is sufficiently connected to the maintenance event and was foreseeable.
The tenant and his helpers used three cars and would have had to drive about a combined distance of 120 kilometres between Huia, where the tenant’s grandmother lived, and Sandringham. I had intended to order $72.00 for mileage at the rate of $0.66 per kilometre. However, the tenant’s friends’ and family’s costs are not his, so he suffered no loss. Therefore, The Tribunal orders one third of that amount, for just the tenant’s mileage.
The leaks damaged the tenant’s book, The Art of War. The landlord offered a used copy of the book, but the tenant did not want it. It is appropriate to order $10.00 for the loss of the book. Filing fee
The landlord must reimburse the tenant for the filing fee because he has substantially succeeded in his claim. Non-publication
The tenant seeks an order for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in his application. l do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 7

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635650. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Koha to friends who helped tenant move out	$58.96	Koha to friends who helped tenant move out
Mileage costs for move-out	$24.00	Mileage costs for move-out
Loss of amenity – premises leaking 26/06 – 10/07/23	$353.57	Loss of amenity – premises leaking 26/06 – 10/07/23
Book: The Art of War	$10.00	Book: The Art of War
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address room number must not be published.
Sandringham Lodge Limited must pay [the tenant] $466.97 immediately, as calculated in the table below. DescriptionTenant Koha to friends who helped tenant move out$58.96 Mileage costs for move-out$24.00 Loss of amenity – premises leaking 26/06 – 10/07/23 Book: The Art of War $353.57
00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$466.97

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing for himself.
Jasmeet Singh, the lodge manager, attended for the landlord.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises and seeks compensation and exemplary damages. Background
The tenancy began on 22 July 2022. The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. The premises consisted of a large studio-type room with a bed, desk, and fridge among other things, and a bathroom.
The lodge has 90 rooms and is professionally run. The tenant is an industrious young man, who lived quietly at the premises without complaint until these events.
On 26 June 2023, almost a year after the tenancy began, the tenant was woken in the early hours of the morning by water dripping down a wall onto a plastic bag.
He had to leave for work early that morning but reported the problem to Mr Singh later that day. Mr Singh and the tenant went to the premises to assess the situation. At that point, there was no active dripping, and Mr Singh’s assessment was that the dripping water must be due to condensation, a recurring winter issue.
The dripping returned, however. The tenant says: So throughout that week I just kept mopping/soaking up the dripping with my towels. It was definitely a hassle, including having to pay more to do the extra laundry, but it hadn’t really worsened that much – just the same slow drip...
Then on 3 July 2023, the tenant noticed that the bathroom floor was wet which he presumed to be due to the toilet leaking. He reported the leak to Mr Singh who again put the situation down to condensation and gave the tenant a moisture absorber to place on the floor.
The next day the tenant found that the bathroom floor was even wetter. At Mr Singh’s request, the tenant sent Mr Singh a video of the water pooling on the floor.
On 7 July 2023, two plumbers attended and attempted to fix the leaking toilet. While they were there, the plumbers noticed the bathroom light was not working and water was leaking through the ceiling light fitting.
The plumbers investigated the cause of the leak, opining (incorrectly) there was a leak in the roof.
The tenant says he was finding it increasingly unpleasant to stay in the premises because of the ceiling and toilet leaks and the associated musty odour. He stayed at a friend’s home that weekend.
By Monday 10 July 2023, the ceiling leaks had significantly worsened. There were now four ceiling leaks. Mr Singh and the tenant agree the premises were uninhabitable.
The tenant had to move out immediately. He had to move to his grandmother’s house. To make matters worse, the tenant badly sprained his ankle at work that day so moving out at such short notice was exceedingly difficult to do. Luckily, his friends and family helped him move at short notice.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable standard of repair? b. Is the landlord liable to compensation the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

Under s 66I(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords of boarding must ensure the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 66I Landlord’s ongoing obligations (1) The landlord of a boarding house must, at all times,— (a) ... (b) ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 1 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), Schedule 1A.
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair such defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 2 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: 3 “...the obligation of the landlord...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...”
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 4 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Discussion
The tenant first raised concerns about water dripping down a wall with Mr Singh on 26 June 2023. However, when Mr Singh investigated the issue that day, water was not actively dripping, and he concluded the dripping was probably due to excessive condensation.
However, the tenant had lived at the premises for almost a year and so was well placed to assess whether condensation was implicated. After the tenancy ended, the landlord’s repair contractors discovered a leaking copper pipe. Water from the leak was entering the ceiling of the premises.
Mr Singh’s view is that the pipe leaked suddenly and catastrophically, and the earlier dripping was due to condensation. I find it more likely that the copper pipe leak rather than condensation caused the dripping on 26 June 2023. The pipe leak probably worsened over the next week or so, finally making the premises uninhabitable altogether.
I find the landlord failed to repair the premises within a reasonable time. Leaks to premises of this kind should be addressed urgently. The leak was not addressed promptly because Mr Singh misdiagnosed the cause of the dripping water. He had acquired the knowledge of the dripping water from the tenant’s 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 4 See n 2. report. That was sufficient knowledge to trigger the landlord’s obligation to repair.
It follows, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Exemplary damages?

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. 5
However, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the premises intentionally. Mr Singh visited the premises but honestly believed that excess condensation was the cause. It was only afterwards contractors discovered the pipe was leaking.
Mr Singh acted competently and professionally. His misdiagnosis of the cause of the leak was understandable. It was a “but for the grace of God go I” mistake. After the premises were rendered uninhabitable, Mr Singh did his best to find the tenant somewhere else in the building to live and offered the premises back to the tenant after they were repaired.
The tenant does not dispute that the landlord actions were unintentional.
Because I am not satisfied the unlawful act was caused intentionally, the Tribunal cannot entertain an order for exemplary damages.

Compensation?

Although, there was no intention, I still consider that there was a failure to maintain.
The premises’ ceiling leaked from 26 June 2023. The leak was initially small and intermittent. By 9 July 2023, the leaks were constant and so large that the premises were uninhabitable.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that he stayed away from the premises because of the leaks and the dank odour coming from the bathroom. He was genuinely concerned that the leak through the bathroom’s light fitting could have led to him being electrocuted. The leaks affected his sleep and caused him significant stress and inconvenience. 5 RTA, s 109(3)
The tenant’s loss of amenity was only partial on 26 June 2023 but had become total by 9 July 2023. I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity using a broad brush. 6 I consider a 50 per cent rent reduction for the period of 26 June to 10 July 2023 fairly represents the tenant’s overall loss of amenity for the period. That amounts to $353.57.
The tenant also spent almost $60.00 on KFC as koha for his friends and family who pitched in to help him move out. I consider that cost is sufficiently connected to the maintenance event and was foreseeable.
The tenant and his helpers used three cars and would have had to drive about a combined distance of 120 kilometres between Huia, where the tenant’s grandmother lived, and Sandringham. I had intended to order $72.00 for mileage at the rate of $0.66 per kilometre. However, the tenant’s friends’ and family’s costs are not his, so he suffered no loss. Therefore, The Tribunal orders one third of that amount, for just the tenant’s mileage.
The leaks damaged the tenant’s book, The Art of War. The landlord offered a used copy of the book, but the tenant did not want it. It is appropriate to order $10.00 for the loss of the book. Filing fee
The landlord must reimburse the tenant for the filing fee because he has substantially succeeded in his claim. Non-publication
The tenant seeks an order for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in his application. l do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 7

Tenancy Tribunal case 4635650 — Leaks at Room [suppressed], 41A Leslie Avenue, Sandringham,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4635650 — Leaks at Room [suppressed], 41A Leslie Avenue, Sandringham,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Exemplary damages?

Compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Exemplary damages?

Compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions