What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4658990?

The tribunal order states: The application for a work order is withdrawn.

How much money was awarded in case 4658990?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658990?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9746749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4658990?

The tribunal order states: The application for a work order is withdrawn.

How much money was awarded in case 4658990?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658990?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9746749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Hewlings Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4658990 — Leaks

Order

The application for a work order is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation in the form of a rent rebate of $70.00 per week, being the amount of a rent increase that took effect from 23 August 2023, while repair work was being done at the premises.
The tenant has also applied for work orders, but she withdrew that part of the application at the hearing today as the work has been completed.
The landlord has applied for exemplary damages for her stressful dealings with the tenant including the tenant making her Tribunal application and for what she says was the tenant’s failure to report leaks at the premises. Background
The tenancy started on 20 January 2020.
The rent was initially $400.00 per week.
On 21 June 2023, the landlord gave notice of a rent in crease to $470.00 per week effective from 23 August 2023.
The tenant made her application because she did not consider that the rent increase was justified while repair work (including a new roof) was outstanding.
The landlord filed her cross application partly because she was concerned about the tenor of the tenant’s communications with her.
The parties have had a strained relationship. It seems the tenant has made two previous Tribunal applications. The Tribunal heard an application for a work order in December 2020. Then in July 2021, the tenant applied for compensation for various alleged breaches by the landlord and applied to set aside a notice terminating the tenancy. The Tribunal dismissed the application for compensation but did set aside the termination notice – see [2021] NZTT Timaru 4299862. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: •Is the tenant entitled to compensation in the form of a rent rebate of $70.00 per week (the equivalent of the rent increase) while the repair work was being carried out? •Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages? Is the tenant entitled to compensation in the form of a rent rebate of $70.00 per week (the equivalent of the rent increase) while the repair work was being carried out?
The landlord applied a rent reduction of $60.00 per week for a 9-week period up to 7 November 2023 while the repair work was being done at the premises. It was to compensate for the tenant’s loss of use and enjoyment of the premises due to the presence of scaffolding, the loss of use of the car port for a period, the mess left by the contractors, and the presence of multiple tradespeople.
The Tribunal considers that was fair and adequate compensation and makes no additional award.
This is not a market rent application. The tenant confirmed that her claim was solely one for compensation for the disruption caused by the repairs being done; she simply linked the quantum of the compensation she sought to the amount of the rent increase.
Had it been a market rent application it would not have succeeded because the tenant produced no evidence to challenge the market rent appraisals the landlord obtained.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application.

Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages?

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.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I explained to the landlord that she had not identified any breach by the tenant that amounts to a defined unlawful act. Alleged intimidating behaviour, bullying, emotional harm, and challenging a rent increase are not defined unlawful acts under the RTA. Nor do I find that the tenant failed to report leaks leading to a loss for the landlord.
Without a proven breach amounting to a defined unlawful act, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s application. Result
The tenant’s application for a work order is withdrawn; the work for which orders were sought has now been completed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. As both applications are unsuccessful, there are no grounds for name suppression – see section 95A RTA. Comment
It was clear to the Tribunal that the relationship between the parties is fractious. This is now the third application to the Tribunal for a tenancy that has lasted nearly 4 years. Should further issues arise the Tribunal encourages the parties to try and reach a resolution at mediation first.

Order

The application for a work order is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation in the form of a rent rebate of $70.00 per week, being the amount of a rent increase that took effect from 23 August 2023, while repair work was being done at the premises.
The tenant has also applied for work orders, but she withdrew that part of the application at the hearing today as the work has been completed.
The landlord has applied for exemplary damages for her stressful dealings with the tenant including the tenant making her Tribunal application and for what she says was the tenant’s failure to report leaks at the premises. Background
The tenancy started on 20 January 2020.
The rent was initially $400.00 per week.
On 21 June 2023, the landlord gave notice of a rent in crease to $470.00 per week effective from 23 August 2023.
The tenant made her application because she did not consider that the rent increase was justified while repair work (including a new roof) was outstanding.
The landlord filed her cross application partly because she was concerned about the tenor of the tenant’s communications with her.
The parties have had a strained relationship. It seems the tenant has made two previous Tribunal applications. The Tribunal heard an application for a work order in December 2020. Then in July 2021, the tenant applied for compensation for various alleged breaches by the landlord and applied to set aside a notice terminating the tenancy. The Tribunal dismissed the application for compensation but did set aside the termination notice – see [2021] NZTT Timaru 4299862. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: •Is the tenant entitled to compensation in the form of a rent rebate of $70.00 per week (the equivalent of the rent increase) while the repair work was being carried out? •Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages? Is the tenant entitled to compensation in the form of a rent rebate of $70.00 per week (the equivalent of the rent increase) while the repair work was being carried out?
The landlord applied a rent reduction of $60.00 per week for a 9-week period up to 7 November 2023 while the repair work was being done at the premises. It was to compensate for the tenant’s loss of use and enjoyment of the premises due to the presence of scaffolding, the loss of use of the car port for a period, the mess left by the contractors, and the presence of multiple tradespeople.
The Tribunal considers that was fair and adequate compensation and makes no additional award.
This is not a market rent application. The tenant confirmed that her claim was solely one for compensation for the disruption caused by the repairs being done; she simply linked the quantum of the compensation she sought to the amount of the rent increase.
Had it been a market rent application it would not have succeeded because the tenant produced no evidence to challenge the market rent appraisals the landlord obtained.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application.

Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages?

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.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I explained to the landlord that she had not identified any breach by the tenant that amounts to a defined unlawful act. Alleged intimidating behaviour, bullying, emotional harm, and challenging a rent increase are not defined unlawful acts under the RTA. Nor do I find that the tenant failed to report leaks leading to a loss for the landlord.
Without a proven breach amounting to a defined unlawful act, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s application. Result
The tenant’s application for a work order is withdrawn; the work for which orders were sought has now been completed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. As both applications are unsuccessful, there are no grounds for name suppression – see section 95A RTA. Comment
It was clear to the Tribunal that the relationship between the parties is fractious. This is now the third application to the Tribunal for a tenancy that has lasted nearly 4 years. Should further issues arise the Tribunal encourages the parties to try and reach a resolution at mediation first.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658990 — Leaks at 7 Hewlings Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658990 — Leaks at 7 Hewlings Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions