What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4651410 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4651410?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4651410?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4651410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9845320-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4651410 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4651410?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4651410?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4651410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9845320-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

51 Gandalf Crescent, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4651410 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s]
Gladwyn & Tina Properties Ltd. must pay [The tenant/s] $439.00 immediately in accordance with the following table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This tenancy commenced in 2020 when the property was managed by [The former property management company] for Ms Gomes. In 2022 Ms Gomes took back the management of the property and unfortunately the parties’ relationship subsequently deteriorated.
Ms Gomes initially filed a claim with the Tribunal against the bond on 9 August, some weeks before the tenancy actually ended on the 20 th . [The tenant/s] subsequently filed their claims for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by Ms Gomes.
The claims were heard in two hearings as the evidence was so considerable it exceeded the allotted time frame. I note Ms Gomes withdrew her initial claim for a lawyer’s invoice at the first hearing given it did not relate to the tenancy.
Before considering the claims, it is useful if I outline the requirements for proof. In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. It is up to the parties to establish their case and is not for the Tribunal to extract the necessary evidence.
Considerable evidence was provided in these applications, and whilst it has not all been referred to for brevity reasons, the parties can be assured it has all been considered. Landlord’s Claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. Ms Gomes says [The tenant/s] breached these obligations and I consider each of her claims as follows. Carpet cleaning
Ms Gomes claims $400 for cleaning the carpet. She says her carpet cleaner, who arrived an hour into the final inspection, said that the carpets had not been cleaned, despite the tenants saying they had, and as such they needed to be done.
[The tenant/s] provided oral and documentary evidence that they had the carpets professionally cleaned just prior to the final inspection.
Ms Gomes has not proven in evidence that the carpets were stained and not returned in a reasonably clean way as there is no photographic evidence indicating as such. She had already arranged for the carpet cleaner to attend the property before she even inspected it, therefore it appears intended to incur this cost regardless of the state of the carpets.
Accordingly, as it has not been proven that the carpets were not in a reasonably clean state at the end of the tenancy, no breach of s40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA has been established and the claim must be dismissed. Garage door remote
Ms Gomes claims compensation for having to replace two garage door remotes. She says one was not returned and the one that was returned, was not working.
The tenancy agreement notes that only one remote was provided to the tenants therefore I accept their evidence that they were only given one.
Both [The tenant/s] and [The landlord’s handyman] confirmed the remote was working when they tested it at the final inspection. [The landlord’s handyman] says it was not working when he received it later that day.
There is no evidence as to what was actually wrong with the remote as the batteries weren’t even checked before the remotes was replaced. Given this I cannot accept the submission that the tenants broke the remote. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Ms Gomes seeks compensation for having to repair the lounge door, replace a cracked panel heater and repair the gate. The law
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA. Lounge door
Ms Gomes seeks $459.50 compensation for having to repair the lounge sliding door. [The tenant/s]’s evidence is that while closing the door it got stuck. He says they were very careful and so did not force it but immediately emailed Ms Gomes to notify her. [The tenant/s] submits that it is just fair wear and tear on a door they had been using daily for several years.
Ms Gomes’ handyman, [The landlord’s handyman] gave evidence saying that when he attended the property the next day the door was stuck in its closed (out) position and was tilted slightly upwards. He provided a photo of the door tilted up which he says he took before he touched the door. He says that it appeared to him that the door had been forced open which is why it was tilted upwards, and the roller was bent backwards, which he provided a photo of.
He also says that [The tenant/s] asked him to push it back into its cavity as it was a safety hazard left out. It took some force to do so, but he did as requested. After the tenants had vacated, he took the door out and repaired it.
The beading around the glass insets was also peeling off which [The landlord’s handyman] says may have happened by the force that broke it.
[The tenant/s] says the door was tilted up in the photo as a result of [The landlord’s handyman]’s attempts to push it back into the cavity. His evidence is that when they pulled it out the night before it just got stuck for an unknown reason. He says they were not rough with it, it just got stuck and they did not want to force it back in so did not touch it again.
There is no evidence indicating why the door got stuck other than the bent roller. The roller cannot have got bent without excessive force being applied. Excessive force is not exercising care. Accordingly, I find it more likely than not, on the evidence I have been provided, that it the door roller got damaged with careless use.
The reason I have found that the roller most likely got bent during the tenants’ use rather than [The landlord’s handyman]’s, is that something made it stuck and there is nothing else to indicate why, other than the bent roller. I accept the evidence that the beading was peeling throughout the tenancy, therefore do not find the tenants liable for this cost.
According, I find the tenants liable for the repair cost of replacing the roller, however not of repairing the beading. I award $200 which is considered reasonable in the circumstances. This is less than sought for the reasons above, but also I find that in [The landlord’s handyman] forcing the door back into its cavity, further damage was likely sustained. Gate
Ms Gomes claims compensation for having to repair the gate. [The tenant/s] says they never used the gate throughout their tenancy as they parked in the driveway which was where the gate would cross. Accordingly, it must have atrophied through lack of use. It was never tested at the inspections.
The evidence has not established that the tenants carelessly or intentionally caused any damage to this gate. Accordingly, pursuant to the RTA they have no liability for the required repair. This claim is dismissed.
I also note this invoice included a safety and maintenance service of the garage door. This is clearly maintenance and as such a landlord obligation pursuant to section 45(1)(b) of the RTA. The claim for tenant liability of this cost is also dismissed. Panel heaters
Ms Gomes claims compensation for having to replace a panel heater that was cracked at the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] made her aware of this just prior to the end of the tenancy, saying they woke up one morning to it cracked.
[The tenant/s] have provided evidence from an online chat forum regarding such heaters indicating that others have also found cracks on theirs. They also reference the other heater in the property that had also cracked. Accordingly, they say it is a common fault with such heaters.
I find it established to the relevant standard that [The tenant/s] did not damage the heater. I find it more likely than not that it cracked because of a manufacturing fault or fair wear and tear. I note that the expected life span of such a heater according to current depreciation guidelines, is three years, which was the age of this heater.
This claim is dismissed. Tenants’ applications

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise?

[The tenant/s] claim that Ms Gomes has breached her obligations under section 45 of the RTA in failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and as such seek compensation and/or exemplary damages for the breaches.
Breaching this obligation 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.
I discuss each claim separately as follows. Bathroom hole
[The tenant/s] seek $1,950 rent refund being a 10% reduction of rent for the 26 weeks they say they were unable to use the toilet because of a hole in the wall. They say that the hole allowed cockroaches into the toilet room and when their young daughter saw them, she was so terrified she could not use the toilet. They say they tried to help her use it, but she got very upset in doing so and as such had toileting accidents and woke them in the night by needing to use their ensuite.
Ms Gomes’ evidence is that whilst she was aware of the hole, [The tenant/s] never indicated to her that they were not able to use the bathroom because of it. She says it is very small and not a major issue. She did ask her builder to attend to it, but a suitable time could not be agreed with between them.
[The tenant/s] did not tell Ms Gomes that they were not using the bathroom because of the hole or that their daughter saw cockroaches in it. The hole was a minor repair and without this information there was no need for urgency from Ms Gomes in response.
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. In this instance, Ms Gomes’ information about the issue warranted her not having it repaired as soon as she was aware of it.
Further, 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. For example in this instance, placing something in the hole such as material or paper would have resolved the cockroach issue. Further, if a landlord was not carrying out repairs I would expect a tenant within a reasonable time to (i) serve a 14 day notice to remedy the breach on the landlord, (ii) arrange for the repairs to be done and for the landlords to reimburse him or her the cost of the repairs (if the repairs were urgent), (iii) 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.
Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed. Shower liner
The tenants seek a rent reimbursement of 10% for 52 weeks of not using the shower for fear it would break as the liner is coming away from the wall slightly. This was noted at the June 2022 inspection which was the last one under [The former property management company]. [The tenant/s] say they did not use the shower after this.
Ms Gomes says her professional advice is that the gap is because the wall is not at an exact 90-degree angle, and it poses no danger to anyone using it. She says [The tenant/s] never indicated to her that they were not able to use the shower and her observation of the room is that it was fully utilised.
It is not established in evidence that [The tenant/s] told Ms Gomes they were unable to use the shower, nor is it established that there is any real issue with it. The issue was raised, and it was investigated, as such Ms Gomes met her responsibility pursuant to section 45. This claim must be dismissed. Heater
The tenants seek reimbursement of the panel heater they say they felt forced to replace during the tenancy. Ms Gomes considers they damaged the heater. [The former property manager] has provided a written statement confirming it was cracked at the commencement of the tenancy.
Given [The former property manager]’s statement, this was clearly not an issue created by [The tenant/s]. Accordingly, they should not have had to pay this cost and I direct reimbursement as sought. Gardens
The tenants seek reimbursement for the tree/bush trimming they undertook at Ms Gomes’ request. At an inspection, Ms Gomes asked [The tenant/s] to trim the bushes at the back of the property which has grown as high as trees. They questioned this as they did not consider it was their responsibility.
Ms Gomes says she subsequently told them not to trim them after they questioned their obligation to do so. After Ms Gomes said this, [The tenant/s] responded saying they would attend to them as originally requested. There was no further correspondence.
[The tenant/s] spent considerable time trimming them back and now seeks compensation for doing so. Ms Gomes says she specifically told him not to do the work and yet he did, and used a chainsaw which has effectively killed them.
The bushes, given their size, were a landlord maintenance responsibility and accordingly the tenants did not need to do the trimming of them. Despite this, I accept Ms Gomes’ email telling [The tenant/s] that they should leave the bushes and she would do it. [The tenant/s] did not then need to undertake the work themselves and on that basis, it is disingenuous of them now to claim compensation for doing so.
I note that the trimming of a separate flax bush was also discussed at the hearing which was a tenant responsibility. Carpet cleaning
The tenants seek reimbursement of $200 for the carpet cleaning they undertook at the end of the tenancy. They say they did not realise they did not have to do it but had arranged to in an effort to return the property to Ms Gomes in accordance with their legal requirements. They consider they incurred this cost under duress.
As discussed above, carpets are required to be reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, relative to how they were presented at the commencement. Ms Gomes had not specifically directed [The tenant/s] to professionally clean the carpets, therefore if they had assessed they needed to undertake such a clean and did so, the liability rests with them. This claim accordingly must be dismissed.

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

[The tenant/s] consider that Ms Gomes has intentionally harassed, victimised, intimidated and insulted them. They provide the following (briefly stated) examples: a. She attended on 2 July 2022 unannounced with family members and used the opportunity to snoop around. b. At the 3 December 2022 inspection Ms Gomes threatened eviction if they did not comply with her demands as the relationship had become irreparable. c. Her emails show a pattern of emotional blackmail to pressure the tenants. They say they lived on eggshells because of the way she communicated with them so they could not truly relax in their own home and felt controlled. They also say she used their failed attempt to purchase the house against them in her communications. This upset [The tenant/s] greatly, to the extent that whenever Ms Gomes was to attend the home, she ensured that her and the children were absent. d. [The tenant/s] say they were often told they were obliged to do something (such as cut the trees or replace the heater) and when they challenged it were met with such a response that they acquiesced to keep the peace. e. At the final inspection Ms Gomes mocked [The tenant/s], called him a liar and made a number of derogatory statements about and to him, some of which had racial overtones. [The tenant/s] considers Ms Gomes intended the final inspection to be of such a nature as to intimidate, harass and victimise them. f. Ms Gomes came to the final inspection intending to have an argument and had already lodged her claim with the Tribunal and told the Bond Centre to withhold the bond, well before the tenancy had even ended. g. She attended the final inspection with five other people ([The landlord’s handyman] and [The handyman’s wife], a friend, the carpet cleaner and the drug tester) which was intimidating and unnecessary. h. She changed the locks and drug tested the property in their presence which was insulating. i. They say her withholding of the overpaid rent (3 days) was done as a form of harassment as she knew they had overpaid and yet did not refund them the money until just prior to the hearing. j. The way she presented her evidence to the Tribunal was one sided.
[Redacted], who gave evidence for [The tenant/s], said that Ms Gomes’ tone and conduct at the inspection was offensive, confronting, intimidating and demeaning.
Ms Gomes denies acting in such ways. She says she was the one who was bullied and disrespected, and it is not the other way around. She says [The tenant/s] yelled at her and abused her at the final inspection and in their previous communications he had been rude and disrespectful. Ms Gomes’ evidence is that [The tenant/s] went into a rage with her when she refused to sign the bond refund form to the extent that the inspection could not be completed. She says he refused to return the keys until she did so. They discussed for over an hour, and he eventually handed the keys back when the locks had been changed.
Ms Gomes says she was not initially aware of the overpayment and when she was, she was told she should not communicate with the tenants so did not. She paid it just prior to the hearing in an effort to resolve the issue.
Ms Gomes adamantly denies ever threatening to end the tenancy or using words to that effect.
[The landlord’s handyman] who attended the final inspection says in evidence that [The tenant/s] harassed Ms Gomes and his wife. He says he spoke over others and yelled. He saw [The tenant/s] being calmed down by his friend. [The handyman’s wife]’s evidence substantiates these comments.
Ms Gomes has provided a statement from [Redacted] the drug tester who also attended the inspection. In it she says she heard the tenant ‘haranguing the owner’ for the 20 minutes she was present.
Ms Gomes notes that this application is in contrast to [The tenant/s]’s email on 17 July saying they “sincerely express our deep gratitude to you for renting your property to us”. She considers their claim disingenuous and retaliatory to her claim on the bond. The law
A tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(1) and (2) of the RTA. Effectively section 38 imposes a duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises and preserves the tenant’s right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord or their agent. However, while s38(2) states that the landlord must not cause any interference, the duty is modified by the degree of interference being to the “reasonable peace, comfort or privacy” of the tenant.
The word 'privacy' in section 38(2) RTA does not mean privacy in the sense of the Privacy Act 1993. The purpose of the section is to ensure tenants are free from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in their private lives while living at their home.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 1
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
It is clear from these discussions that temporary discomfort or inconvenience does not constitute a basis for breach of the covenant. There are several circumstances, where the landlord’s rights are inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. In those cases, it is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure. Discussion and findings 1 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Having considered the evidence to the relevant standard I make the following findings: a. [The tenant/s] were within their rights to not let Ms Gomes into the home on 2 July and it appears this was at the time considered a friendly visit by all. This is evidenced by their post visit text which said, “we absolutely enjoyed having you on Saturday and it was lovely to see your faces again”. I do not consider that the evidence substantiates the claim that she was “snooping” around. I do not consider this visit a breach of either section 38 or 48 2 of the RTA. b. I find it more likely than not that Ms Gomes did refer colloquially to ending the tenancy verbally when discussing issues on 3 December. I rely here more on [The tenant/s]’s recollection as it would have been distressing for them. c. Some of Ms Gomes’ email comments were inappropriate, for example: i. “Let me remind you of going out of my way to agree to help you...Thank you for showing me what going that extra mile to help someone does not do – makes people take you for granted” 3 ii. “remember what I did for you and if you are grateful this is a small problem....please leave without causing me stress” 4 iii. “you’ll are very very rude...I reiterate again I did you a big favour by cancelling the contract” 5 d. Ms Gomes’ emails did minimise [The tenant/s]’s notifications of the issues with the door and heater and did refer to her previous kindness to them. e. In saying that, the tenants were quoting the RTA and referencing seeking legal advice in their communications which increased the animosity. Therefore, towards the end of the tenancy neither party was communicating constructively with each other. This was heightened when just after [The tenant/s] gave notice, there were two issues of maintenance raised. f. Ms Gomes was not intending to sign the bond form at the inspection as she had already filed her claim with the Tribunal and asked for the bond to be held in dispute, referencing the tenants as “bullies”. She expected issues, and she got them. g. Ms Gomes intended to change the locks and have the property drug tested at the inspection whilst knowing that [The tenant/s] were present. I accept 2 Landlord’s right of entry 3 Email 14 September 2022 4 Email 19 July 2023 5 Email 19 July 2023 the evidence that this was unnecessarily confronting and upsetting for [The tenant/s]. I appreciate that Ms Gomes needed to minimise her time at the property, but it was foreseeably triggering to undertake these tasks, particularly the drug testing, in front of the tenants. h. It was not appropriate for Ms Gomes to bring other people to the final inspection with her who asked questions of [The tenant/s] and got involved in their discussions. It is unsurprising [The tenant/s] felt ambushed. [The tenant/s] had paid rent for the day of the inspection therefore the tenancy was legally continuing until the end of that day. Accordingly, they were entitled to advice as to who was to attend the inspection. i. Ms Gomes did make some inappropriate comments at the final inspection, but I do not find it proven that they were racially motivated. j. There was certainly passionate disagreement regarding the two items left at the property. I find it likely that both Ms Gomes and [The tenant/s] raised their voices in this discussion. I also consider it likely that [The tenant/s] at times was yelling and that Ms Gomes made some inappropriate comments. [The tenant/s] agreed that Ms Gomes triggers [The tenant/s] at times. k. [The tenant/s] had clearly taken exceptional care of the property during their tenure and accordingly it was upsetting to be told it was not clean, they had damaged it, the locks needed to be changed and it was to be drug tested. l. I do not read anything into the delayed rent refund or way Ms Gomes’ case was presented.
I consider that what had been a friendly relationship soured after the sale fell through and Ms Gomes took over as property manager. Ms Gomes appears to have felt taken for granted, and [The tenant/s] were adjusting to the change in style in property management from a high-trust respectful relationship to a more closely monitored relationship. Part of the issue here appears to relate to the change in management as Ms Gomes was not privy to all of the discussions between the tenants and [The former property management company] and as such they both had differing views as to what had happened.
I consider this more a situation of personalities clashing after both parties felt the other had taken them for granted and disrespected them. The Tribunal has also taken the view in the past that a personality clash or a difference of opinion does not of itself amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Whilst it can impact on reasonable peace and comfort in a significant way, more is needed to prove the landlord is liable for a breach of s38.
Both parties were operating under different advice and information. This did not make either wrong, but they were both coming from different perspectives. For example, Ms Gomes had considered [The former property management company] very thorough and efficient therefore was surprised she had not been told about the cracked heater by them. [The tenant/s] had told [The former property management company] about the heater so were surprised when Ms Gomes said she was unaware.
Having considered this situation very carefully as I understand it is of great importance to all parties, I find that Ms Gomes did breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment by the way she conducted the final inspection, as referenced above. However, I do not find that she had displayed a pattern of behaviour that meets the very high threshold of harassment.

What orders should be made?

As I have found that Ms Gomes’ behaviour did not amount to harassment, an award of exemplary damages is not available.
[The tenant/s] have sought a direction from the Tribunal to Ms Gomes that she write a letter of apology to them. I have no jurisdiction to make such a direction.
They have also sought compensation for stress incurred by Ms Gomes’ behaviour. As I have found that Ms Gomes did breach section 38, I consider this claim as follows.
The Tribunal has the authority to award damages for stress and inconvenience. It does so on the basis that the law of contract allows such damages where the purpose or one of the purposes of the contract is the peace and comfort of the party and, in the case of a tenant, that is regarded as one of the purposes of a tenancy agreement.
Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
As a starting point the Tribunal adopts the position that a tenancy agreement involves a relationship: relationships are rarely smooth and a tenant must expect some disruption or inconvenience from to time to time. Inevitably there is likely to be disruption when a tenancy approaches its end, even if both parties act entirely lawfully.
Considering the level of damages to award, 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. As follows: “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 it foreseeable for Ms Gomes that the way she approached and conducted the final inspection would cause distress to [The tenant/s], especially given the way their recent communications had been. Having considered all of the relevant factors, including [The tenant/s]’s behaviour at the inspection, I find that an award of $400 is justified.
[The tenant/s] have also sought redress for Ms Gomes not providing them with inspection reports after her inspections. Landlords are not legally obliged to provide such reports; accordingly I must dismiss this claim.

Was the Healthy Homes statement provided?

Pursuant to section 13A(1CA) and 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA a landlord must provide in the tenancy agreement a statement with respect to the compliance to the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). This statement was included in the original tenancy agreement but not in the agreement Ms Gomes had the parties sign in May 2022
Ms Gomes says this is because nothing had changed with respect to the property for the tenants, it was just a new agreement as she was going to be managing the property herself rather than [The former property management company]. As such she says the tenants could rely on the previous information provided with respect to the HHS.
When the 2020 agreement was signed, landlords were only required to provide a statement as to intended compliance with the HHS. Tenancy agreements signed post 1 July 2021 actually had time frames they had to comply with the HHS. In the initial agreement it was noted that the property was going to comply with the HHS but did not at that time.
There is no evidence as to further information the tenants received regarding compliance. This made it even more important for the agreement signed in May 2022 to be specific as to HHS compliance.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Ms Gomes has failed to include the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement, accordingly I find she has 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 consider the intentional element of section 109 met despite Ms Gomes saying she was not aware. This is because she had managed tenancies for a number of years, only using [The former property management company] when her personal circumstances forced her to. She was aware of the law and of how to obtain information on it from Tenancy Services. She also obtained the tenancy agreement from Tenancy Services at the time, therefore the relevant section would have been included.
Taking into account the above, but also that it had no material impact on the tenants, I consider an award of $100 reasonable in the circumstances. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. Suppression
[The tenant/s] seek suppression and pursuant to section 95A, given they were successful to an extent in their claims, I approve this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4651410 — Healthy homes at 51 Gandalf Crescent, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

Tenancy Tribunal case 4651410 — Healthy homes at 51 Gandalf Crescent, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

What orders should be made?

Was the Healthy Homes statement provided?

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

What orders should be made?

Was the Healthy Homes statement provided?