What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655009 about?

The tribunal order states: Ihome Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Ldw Pm Limited must

How much money was awarded in case 4655009?

Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655009?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9791532-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655009 about?

The tribunal order states: Ihome Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Ldw Pm Limited must

How much money was awarded in case 4655009?

Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655009?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9791532-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

75 Papatupu Way, Kumeu, Kumeu 0810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655009 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655009 — net $2,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,520.44

Order

Ihome Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Ldw Pm Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,520.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 8 August 2023.
Almost immediately the tenant raised issues with the property, including: a. A lack of rubbish bins. b. Missing smoke alarms. c. The heat pump did not work. d. The roof access point had no cover. e. There were no back door keys.
Most of these issues were remedied on either 15 or 22 August 2023, with the exception of the rubbish bin (recycling and food scraps bins were provided).
On 26 September 2023, the tenant advised the landlord that the down pipes were not working correctly. There was significant water leaking out and hitting the bedroom window frame. This cause loud noise and sleep disruption.
On 27 October 2023, the power in the second level of the house stopped working. The tenant raised this with the landlord immediately. An electrician attended on 30 October 2023. The issue was repaired, and the electrician advised that water from the gutters (which was escaping the downpipes) had entered an external light and cause the power to short.
On 1 November 2023, the downpipes were repaired.
On 15 November 2023, the tenant advised the landlord that an unknown alarm was sounding outside the property.
On 21 November 2023, the tenant advised the landlord that the septic tank had overflowed and spilt wastewater across the patio area.
The tenant was unable to use the upstairs bathroom or the laundry at that time.
The septic tank was repaired on 8 December 2023. While at the property the repair technician advised the tenant, he was only contact to attend the day before.
The tenant is very frustrated that he only has a response to maintenance issues when he threatens to take tribunal action.
In the response, the landlord largely accepts the tenant’s facts as outlined, but notes the following: a. In relation to the downpipe, the builder who constructed the house (and which is still under warranty) was contacted to repair the downpipes but needed several reminders to get that done. b. In relation to the septic tank, they had to contact a number of plumbers before reaching the appropriate repair person.
The landlord accepts that their communication with the tenant was lacking over this time.
The tenant seeks compensation for costs incurred, including purchasing a heater at a cost of $759.00. He also seeks assurances that there will be no significant delays in attending to maintenance and repairs in the future.
For completeness, the healthy homes compliance date for this property is 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy. That said, there is a healthy homes assessment dated 3 August 2023 which notes the premises is compliant with the standards. Obviously, this was not entirely correct, as the heat pump needed to be connected to operate, and the downpipes needed to be properly sealed. 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 and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
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 into account the details set out above, I consider that the landlord has breached its obligations in relation to the downpipe, the smoke alarms and the septic tank.
I do not consider that the failure to connect the heat pump was for long enough to constitute a breach of the Act. I reach this conclusion for two reasons, first HHS compliance date was 120 days from the commencement of the tenancy, so the date for the heating to comply had not been reached by the date of repair. Secondly, I am conscious that the tenants were advised (in reliance on the HHA) that the premises was compliant, and that wasn’t so. On that basis, I considered whether then delay between 8 August and 15 August constitutes a failure to maintain. Even taking into account the time of year, I do not consider this delay is so long that it is a breach of the Act. I do consider that the landlord should have been more communicative with the tenant, to advise him that his concerns were being actioned, advise of the reasons for delay, and the timeframe for completion.
In relation to the downpipe and the septic tank, I consider that the delays in attending to both issues were too long. Again, the delays were made worse by the lack of communication with the tenant. Both issues had safety consequences – the downpipe in terms of water entering the wiring of the house, which short-circuited part of it, and the septic tank in terms of the wastewater flowing across the patio area. Further, I consider the 3 days the tenants were without power to part of the house was unacceptable.
Finally, in relation to smoke alarms, these were required to be fitted and operational at the commencement of the tenancy. This was a newly built home, and no good reason was given for the lack of smoke alarms.
I acknowledge that the delay to fitting them was not significant, and had this been the only breach, I would likely not have awarded exemplary damages. However, in the context of multiple issues, and repeated delays and failures in communication, I consider this factor to be an aggravating feature of the landlord’s breach.
I find the landlord has 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 noisy house, with sleep impacted by the flow of water from the downpipe, followed by 3 days without power to the middle level of the dwelling. Throughout this time, there was no communication as to when a remedy could be expected. Shortly afterwards, the tenant suffered wastewater flowing across the patio for 2.5 weeks. Again, with no communication as to when a repair could be expected. He had no use of the laundry or a bathroom during this period.
The tenant’s frustration with the landlord and the lack of response to issues is entirely understandable. A significant portion of his tenancy to date has been taken up by maintenance issues and repeated failures by the landlord to take action.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair this damage. The tenant made repeated and clear requests for assistance and received no response. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is not insignificant.
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 the case, and I award $2,500.00. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655009 — net $2,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,520.44

Order

Ihome Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Ldw Pm Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,520.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 8 August 2023.
Almost immediately the tenant raised issues with the property, including: a. A lack of rubbish bins. b. Missing smoke alarms. c. The heat pump did not work. d. The roof access point had no cover. e. There were no back door keys.
Most of these issues were remedied on either 15 or 22 August 2023, with the exception of the rubbish bin (recycling and food scraps bins were provided).
On 26 September 2023, the tenant advised the landlord that the down pipes were not working correctly. There was significant water leaking out and hitting the bedroom window frame. This cause loud noise and sleep disruption.
On 27 October 2023, the power in the second level of the house stopped working. The tenant raised this with the landlord immediately. An electrician attended on 30 October 2023. The issue was repaired, and the electrician advised that water from the gutters (which was escaping the downpipes) had entered an external light and cause the power to short.
On 1 November 2023, the downpipes were repaired.
On 15 November 2023, the tenant advised the landlord that an unknown alarm was sounding outside the property.
On 21 November 2023, the tenant advised the landlord that the septic tank had overflowed and spilt wastewater across the patio area.
The tenant was unable to use the upstairs bathroom or the laundry at that time.
The septic tank was repaired on 8 December 2023. While at the property the repair technician advised the tenant, he was only contact to attend the day before.
The tenant is very frustrated that he only has a response to maintenance issues when he threatens to take tribunal action.
In the response, the landlord largely accepts the tenant’s facts as outlined, but notes the following: a. In relation to the downpipe, the builder who constructed the house (and which is still under warranty) was contacted to repair the downpipes but needed several reminders to get that done. b. In relation to the septic tank, they had to contact a number of plumbers before reaching the appropriate repair person.
The landlord accepts that their communication with the tenant was lacking over this time.
The tenant seeks compensation for costs incurred, including purchasing a heater at a cost of $759.00. He also seeks assurances that there will be no significant delays in attending to maintenance and repairs in the future.
For completeness, the healthy homes compliance date for this property is 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy. That said, there is a healthy homes assessment dated 3 August 2023 which notes the premises is compliant with the standards. Obviously, this was not entirely correct, as the heat pump needed to be connected to operate, and the downpipes needed to be properly sealed. 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 and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
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 into account the details set out above, I consider that the landlord has breached its obligations in relation to the downpipe, the smoke alarms and the septic tank.
I do not consider that the failure to connect the heat pump was for long enough to constitute a breach of the Act. I reach this conclusion for two reasons, first HHS compliance date was 120 days from the commencement of the tenancy, so the date for the heating to comply had not been reached by the date of repair. Secondly, I am conscious that the tenants were advised (in reliance on the HHA) that the premises was compliant, and that wasn’t so. On that basis, I considered whether then delay between 8 August and 15 August constitutes a failure to maintain. Even taking into account the time of year, I do not consider this delay is so long that it is a breach of the Act. I do consider that the landlord should have been more communicative with the tenant, to advise him that his concerns were being actioned, advise of the reasons for delay, and the timeframe for completion.
In relation to the downpipe and the septic tank, I consider that the delays in attending to both issues were too long. Again, the delays were made worse by the lack of communication with the tenant. Both issues had safety consequences – the downpipe in terms of water entering the wiring of the house, which short-circuited part of it, and the septic tank in terms of the wastewater flowing across the patio area. Further, I consider the 3 days the tenants were without power to part of the house was unacceptable.
Finally, in relation to smoke alarms, these were required to be fitted and operational at the commencement of the tenancy. This was a newly built home, and no good reason was given for the lack of smoke alarms.
I acknowledge that the delay to fitting them was not significant, and had this been the only breach, I would likely not have awarded exemplary damages. However, in the context of multiple issues, and repeated delays and failures in communication, I consider this factor to be an aggravating feature of the landlord’s breach.
I find the landlord has 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 noisy house, with sleep impacted by the flow of water from the downpipe, followed by 3 days without power to the middle level of the dwelling. Throughout this time, there was no communication as to when a remedy could be expected. Shortly afterwards, the tenant suffered wastewater flowing across the patio for 2.5 weeks. Again, with no communication as to when a repair could be expected. He had no use of the laundry or a bathroom during this period.
The tenant’s frustration with the landlord and the lack of response to issues is entirely understandable. A significant portion of his tenancy to date has been taken up by maintenance issues and repeated failures by the landlord to take action.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair this damage. The tenant made repeated and clear requests for assistance and received no response. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is not insignificant.
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 the case, and I award $2,500.00. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655009 — State of repair at 75 Papatupu Way, Kumeu, Kumeu 0810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655009 — State of repair at 75 Papatupu Way, Kumeu, Kumeu 0810

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