What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645571 about?

The tribunal order states: John Richardson must pay [The tenant/s] $7,020.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4645571?

Compensation: Rent Abatement: $4,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645571?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9887882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645571 about?

The tribunal order states: John Richardson must pay [The tenant/s] $7,020.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4645571?

Compensation: Rent Abatement: $4,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645571?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9887882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 Meadowvale Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4645571 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645571 — net $7,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: rent abatement	$4,500.00	rent abatement
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$2,500.00	failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,020.44

Order

John Richardson must pay [The tenant/s] $7,020.44 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation: rent abatement$4,500.00 Exemplary damages: failure to maintain $2,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $7,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
I had previous heard, and declined, an application by the tenants challenging the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy pursuant to s51(2)(f) of the Act arising out of the damage to the premises from flooding the extreme weather event which impact Auckland in January and February 2023. The tenancy terminated on 2 November 2023.
The tenants now seek compensation and exemplary damages for loss of amenity and failure to maintain the premises.
The landlord indicated he also had claims against the tenants. However, he has not filed an application with the Tribunal, so I am unable to determine those claims. Exemplary damages generally
The RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order those exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal is able to consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award. Failure to Maintain
[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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
The tenant alleges that the landlord followed to maintain the following in a timely manner: a. The roof of the downstairs living room which leaked regularly and grew mould, between 2019 and 2022. b. The upstairs roof which leaked, extensively, between March and October 2022. c. The oven door between October 2022 and May 2023. d. The light fittings in the dining room between November 2021 and October 2022.
The tenant provided evidence of each of these issues being raised with the landlord’s property manager regularly, and nothing being done to remedy the damage. In addition to the written material, the tenants’ position is that they told the property manager verbally and raised the issues at property inspections. They also say they told the landlord directly when he was at the premises repairing other things.
The landlord’s position is that he was not made aware of the issues as they arose and was only told later. When told about issues he had them attended to as promptly as possible. The landlord does not accept that the tenants verbally told him about the leaks in the either ceiling while he was at the house, although he does accept that they told him about the light fittings personally.
Given the detail provided by the tenants, and the number of times they raised issues with the property manager, I find the idea that they would not raise it with the landlord when he was at the house highly unlikely. I prefer the evidence of the tenants on this point.
In any event, the emails and messages to the property manager are all that was required to raise the issues. As the landlord accepted at the hearing, the property manager was his agent, and the tenants were entitled to rely on that communication.
Accordingly, I consider the landlord failed to maintain the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a leaking and mould for a long time. They had reduced use of the downstairs lounge for almost three years, and for several months in 2022 were required to move furniture around in the upstairs living room and bedroom whenever it rained. The tenants were required to undertake significant amounts of extra cleaning to avoid mould appearing upstairs.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair this damage. While there may have been a lack of communication from the property manager, that is not of the tenants doing. The tenants followed the appropriate process for raising issues and were entitled to have them resolved. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is significant.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $2,500.00. Loss of amenity
This tenancy relates to a 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom house spread over two levels. There are three bedrooms, the main kitchen, living room and bathrooms upstairs, then a fourth bedroom, third bathroom and second living area downstairs.
The premises was damaged in the flooding that hit Auckland, and in particular the North Shore at the end of January 2023. The downstairs of the premises was extensively damaged. That was the basis of the notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenants have been mostly living in the upstairs area only since then, although they did use the bedroom downstairs.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenants have lost the use of a portion of the premises they agreed to rent. While the downstairs bedroom was still used the tenants use of the rest of the downstairs was compromised.
That said, I do not consider the landlord has acted intentionally. He was waiting for the insurance assessment process to be completed to confirm what repairs would be funded. There was a significant delay in this due to the manner in which claims were prioritised.
Nor do I consider that the stigma of an award of exemplary damages is warranted in a case such as this.
However, I cannot overlook the long-lasting loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. I consider they are entitled to compensation for that loss of amenity. I include in this claim, the period the tenants had to deal with mould and leaks in the downstairs living room and the significant leaking in the upstairs lounge and bedroom that required the repeated moving of furniture and use of buckets to catch water whenever it rained.
The tenant seeks compensation at a rate of $160 per week between 27 January 2023 and the end of the tenancy on 2 November 2023.
To the tenant’s credit they have continued to pay full rent for the entire period, and while the matter was before the Tribunal for determination.
The landlord accepts that some compensation is payment, but dispute the quantum, noting that they tenants have some use of the downstairs. The landlord also noted that he could not afford to pay additional compensation. The landlord stresses that the damage and the delay to repair it are not the landlord’s fault.
I entirely accept that the damage from January 2023 is not the landlord’s fault. But nor is it the tenant’s fault, and it is the tenants who have suffered the loss of use of part of the premises they contracted to rent. The tenants have no ability to protect or insure themselves against this loss. Landlords are able to insure against lost rent.
Further, the duration of the loss of amenity from the earlier failures to maintain are of the landlord’s doing,
I consider that a further rent abatement is appropriate in this case. Taking into account the two causes of the loss of amenity, rather than setting a weekly rebate I have assessed a global figure for compensation which reflects the duration of the loss of amenity (being almost three years for the downstair lounge, 7 months for the upstairs roof and then the 40 weeks between the January flooding and termination of the tenancy), but also the fact that there was some use of the downstairs. The amount ordered is awarded as compensation for the loss of amenity suffered.
I award $4500.00 pursuant to s77(2)(n) of the Act.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645571 — net $7,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: rent abatement	$4,500.00	rent abatement
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$2,500.00	failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,020.44

Order

John Richardson must pay [The tenant/s] $7,020.44 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation: rent abatement$4,500.00 Exemplary damages: failure to maintain $2,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $7,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
I had previous heard, and declined, an application by the tenants challenging the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy pursuant to s51(2)(f) of the Act arising out of the damage to the premises from flooding the extreme weather event which impact Auckland in January and February 2023. The tenancy terminated on 2 November 2023.
The tenants now seek compensation and exemplary damages for loss of amenity and failure to maintain the premises.
The landlord indicated he also had claims against the tenants. However, he has not filed an application with the Tribunal, so I am unable to determine those claims. Exemplary damages generally
The RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order those exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal is able to consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award. Failure to Maintain
[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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
The tenant alleges that the landlord followed to maintain the following in a timely manner: a. The roof of the downstairs living room which leaked regularly and grew mould, between 2019 and 2022. b. The upstairs roof which leaked, extensively, between March and October 2022. c. The oven door between October 2022 and May 2023. d. The light fittings in the dining room between November 2021 and October 2022.
The tenant provided evidence of each of these issues being raised with the landlord’s property manager regularly, and nothing being done to remedy the damage. In addition to the written material, the tenants’ position is that they told the property manager verbally and raised the issues at property inspections. They also say they told the landlord directly when he was at the premises repairing other things.
The landlord’s position is that he was not made aware of the issues as they arose and was only told later. When told about issues he had them attended to as promptly as possible. The landlord does not accept that the tenants verbally told him about the leaks in the either ceiling while he was at the house, although he does accept that they told him about the light fittings personally.
Given the detail provided by the tenants, and the number of times they raised issues with the property manager, I find the idea that they would not raise it with the landlord when he was at the house highly unlikely. I prefer the evidence of the tenants on this point.
In any event, the emails and messages to the property manager are all that was required to raise the issues. As the landlord accepted at the hearing, the property manager was his agent, and the tenants were entitled to rely on that communication.
Accordingly, I consider the landlord failed to maintain the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a leaking and mould for a long time. They had reduced use of the downstairs lounge for almost three years, and for several months in 2022 were required to move furniture around in the upstairs living room and bedroom whenever it rained. The tenants were required to undertake significant amounts of extra cleaning to avoid mould appearing upstairs.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair this damage. While there may have been a lack of communication from the property manager, that is not of the tenants doing. The tenants followed the appropriate process for raising issues and were entitled to have them resolved. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is significant.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $2,500.00. Loss of amenity
This tenancy relates to a 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom house spread over two levels. There are three bedrooms, the main kitchen, living room and bathrooms upstairs, then a fourth bedroom, third bathroom and second living area downstairs.
The premises was damaged in the flooding that hit Auckland, and in particular the North Shore at the end of January 2023. The downstairs of the premises was extensively damaged. That was the basis of the notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenants have been mostly living in the upstairs area only since then, although they did use the bedroom downstairs.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenants have lost the use of a portion of the premises they agreed to rent. While the downstairs bedroom was still used the tenants use of the rest of the downstairs was compromised.
That said, I do not consider the landlord has acted intentionally. He was waiting for the insurance assessment process to be completed to confirm what repairs would be funded. There was a significant delay in this due to the manner in which claims were prioritised.
Nor do I consider that the stigma of an award of exemplary damages is warranted in a case such as this.
However, I cannot overlook the long-lasting loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. I consider they are entitled to compensation for that loss of amenity. I include in this claim, the period the tenants had to deal with mould and leaks in the downstairs living room and the significant leaking in the upstairs lounge and bedroom that required the repeated moving of furniture and use of buckets to catch water whenever it rained.
The tenant seeks compensation at a rate of $160 per week between 27 January 2023 and the end of the tenancy on 2 November 2023.
To the tenant’s credit they have continued to pay full rent for the entire period, and while the matter was before the Tribunal for determination.
The landlord accepts that some compensation is payment, but dispute the quantum, noting that they tenants have some use of the downstairs. The landlord also noted that he could not afford to pay additional compensation. The landlord stresses that the damage and the delay to repair it are not the landlord’s fault.
I entirely accept that the damage from January 2023 is not the landlord’s fault. But nor is it the tenant’s fault, and it is the tenants who have suffered the loss of use of part of the premises they contracted to rent. The tenants have no ability to protect or insure themselves against this loss. Landlords are able to insure against lost rent.
Further, the duration of the loss of amenity from the earlier failures to maintain are of the landlord’s doing,
I consider that a further rent abatement is appropriate in this case. Taking into account the two causes of the loss of amenity, rather than setting a weekly rebate I have assessed a global figure for compensation which reflects the duration of the loss of amenity (being almost three years for the downstair lounge, 7 months for the upstairs roof and then the 40 weeks between the January flooding and termination of the tenancy), but also the fact that there was some use of the downstairs. The amount ordered is awarded as compensation for the loss of amenity suffered.
I award $4500.00 pursuant to s77(2)(n) of the Act.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645571 — State of repair at 21 Meadowvale Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645571 — State of repair at 21 Meadowvale Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions