What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4662612 about?

The tribunal order states: The respondent is Kapiti Coast A1 Rental Limited. [Redacted] was not a party to

How much money was awarded in case 4662612?

Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Reduction For Misleading Premis…: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4662612?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4662612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10221739-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4662612 about?

The tribunal order states: The respondent is Kapiti Coast A1 Rental Limited. [Redacted] was not a party to

How much money was awarded in case 4662612?

Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Reduction For Misleading Premis…: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4662612?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4662612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10221739-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4662612 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4662612 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4662612 — net $6,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for cleaning the property	$1,400.00	for cleaning the property
Rent reduction for misleading premises description	$400.00	Rent reduction for misleading premises description
Exemplary damages: Section 45(1A	$4,200.00	Section 45(1A
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,020.44

Claims and awards for application 4662612 — net $6,020.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: for cleaning the property

Amount: $1,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: for cleaning the property

Rent reduction for misleading premises description

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rent reduction for misleading premises description

Exemplary damages: Section 45(1A

Amount: $4,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Section 45(1A

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $6,020.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $6,020.44

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

The respondent is Kapiti Coast A1 Rental Limited. [Redacted] was not a party to the tenancy contract.
Kapiti Coast A1 Realty Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $6,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: for cleaning the property $1,400.00 Rent reduction for misleading premises description $400.00 Exemplary damages: Section 45(1A) $4,200.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $6,020.44

Reasons

Is [Tenant 1] a tenant at [Tenancy address suppressed]?

Where there is dispute regarding who are tenants in a tenancy, the Tribunal is required to determine who tenants are. (see s77(2)(b)) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
[Tenant 2] stated that [Tenant 1] was always intended to be a tenant on the Tenancy Agreement (the Agreement) but the landlord failed to include his name on the Agreement. [Tenant 1] is [Tenant 2]’s partner. He was at the property __46626122 when the tenancy began. The landlord should have recorded his name on the Agreement. He is a tenant at the property and a party in this application. Matters to be determined.
In summary the issues to be determined for compensation and exemplary damages are: a. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair? b. Did the landlord maintain the premises? c. Did the landlord breach Healthy Home Standards (HHS)? d. Was the advertisement for the property misleading regarding a studio? e. Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the Tenancy Agreement to the tenants before the tenancy began? f. Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information to the tenants? Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and a reasonable state of repair? (see sections 45(1)(a)&(b) the Act)
Under section 45(1) of the Act, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord breached its obligations regarding cleanliness and maintenance of the premises. They produced a document that recorded all the problems that they immediately identified as needing the landlord’s attention. It is a detailed list which I could summarize however I believe it is better to include it in full in the decision as it does reflect the state of the property that the tenants experienced and on which part of their claim is based. “Property Inspection Report for [Tenancy address suppressed] Inspection completed on 11/11/2022 Tenancy started 12/11/2022 Entrance to house The ceiling at front door has water damage and is crumbling. Front entrance lights do not work, light bulbs missing, front door lock is not secure, no keys for deadlock, security system not functional. Hardened of plaster covering entrance tiles, nails and screws covering walls, skirting boards, covered in filth and fly dirt ceiling & walls covered by cobwebs and holes, overwhelming smell of cigarette smoke and all surfaces, plugs and cords covered with sticky yellow nicotine film, smell of dampness. Kitchen Kitchen floors covered in stains and paint, extremely dirty with rips and tears, all cupboards dirty, walls and skirting covered in fly dirt, nicotine __46626123 film, holes and dents. drawer cabinetry loose and shaky, kitchen range hood has unsafe power switch, covered with fat on exterior and dripping with fat in the filters, no light, built-in water purifier hasn't been serviced, all switches and light fittings dirty, lino torn and coming away in doorway between kitchen and laundry. Laundry Door and locks damaged, no key for deadlock, multiple holes, cobwebs and nicotine film covering all surfaces. Power point dangerous. Lounge Huge flea infestation throughout entire house, black mold and stains on ripped curtains, nicotine film and cobwebs on all surfaces, musty smell throughout, 7 missing light bulbs, wobbly or broken light sockets for wall lamps, ceiling and beams dripping with yellow nicotine film, dangerous power points, fire place full of rubbish and unsure when it had flu clean & service, heat pump in need of service and the unit and filter are covered yellow nicotine film, broken or loose window latches on all windows, range slider locks are loose and unsecure, no keys for deadlocks, water leak in window causing black mold and damage to concrete render, no smoke detectors in living area. Stains and rips in carpet. Main Hallway Holes in wall and uncleaned and carpet has fleas and cockroaches found in the hot water cupboards, ceiling and walls covered with holes from nails hooks and screws, cobwebs and fly dirt covering all surfaces. Smells of cigarette smoke and dampness. Holes in the wall, dirty linen and drying cupboard. Room 1 No curtains, fly dirt and cobwebs everywhere, nail holes and stickers over all of the walls, nicotine staining and musty damp smell, carpet stains and rips, flea and cockroaches, black mold on walls, no insects screen. Window latch unsecure. Bathroom Window latch broken, bath tap leaking, smoke butt found in window fame, shaver power point not working, left shower door side is broken at the bottom and unsecure shower rose, seal in shower door coming away, plug in shower was full of grime and black mold, nicotine film dripping from shower unit, light faulty and & heat lamp not working, bathroom cupboards dirty, heated towel rack falling apart and not going, No insects screen, paint on walls, holes in walls from nails hooks and screws, in clean floor and walls. Toilet Broken toilet seat, broken toilet cysteine, window latch and window needs fixing, fowl smelling and extremely dirty, nicotine and fly dirt coating in all surfaces in toilet, no insects screen, floor dirty Room 2 Smells of nicotine and fly dirt on celling and walls, closet and drawers dirty and dusty, concrete walls not clean and covered in black mold, one curtain that didn't cover window also had black mold, no insect screens, pelmet loose, fleas and cockroaches, door handle missing window latches __46626124 broken, mirror light broken, closet door broken off, holes in walls from nails hooks and screws. Room 3 Smells damp and smoky, curtains and walls covered in black mold, fly dirt, cobwebs and nicotine stains on all surfaces, 2 broken wardrobe doors, insects screens broken, flea and cockroach infestation, window and door latches broken, no key for deadlock, main light not working, missing power point cover, holes in walls from nails hooks and screws, stained and damaged carpet. Light not working & bulb missing. Garage No lights working, garage doors is faulty, only one remote and no key for garage door, lot of rubbish left behind side of garage and also in the garage, workshop not cleaned and mold, stains and cobwebs everywhere, studio uninhabitable and unsafe for purpose, faulty power points, mold and algae covering the roof and walls, inside and out. Outside Letter box is broken, all front awning are broken and moldy, a lot of exposed wiring and boxes for TV and telephone box's, security lights I broken at font and at back of house, gardens and lawns not maintained and very overgrown, pot holes in driveway, fences and gates falling apart, moss and algae on exterior walls, skylights covered in moss, garden edging fallen apart and exposed nails, house gutters full of weeds gate locks are rusted and not working, unusable clothesline wire and the structure collapsing, numerous items of rotten and broken furniture left behind, rubbish and debris piled up around the garden and behind the garage, exterior walls of garage & studio covered in mold moss and algae, back door clear light full of mold and debris, roof eaves rotting and possibly leaking, rusty old rubbish screwed to wall outside wash house, piles of wood, hoses and general rubbish left in backyard and outside the back door, leaking water tap up in the backyard, no front gate for security, many timber outside structures and fencing rotten and falling down.”
The tenants also supplied photographs taken at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs do not cover all matters raised in the tenants’ inspection notes but reflect the accuracy of many of the findings the tenants made about the condition of the premises.
In response the landlord provided evidence showing that before the tenancy commenced on 12 November 2022, the landlord contracted commercial cleaners, carpet cleaners, and garden maintenance contractors to clean the property. The landlord provided photos of the property which are dated on the day before the tenancy began. They do not show the property in the same light as the tenant’s photos. The landlord stated that the tenants were advised that maintenance and repairs were still being carried out including gardening, plastering and painting and some electrical work. The landlord stated that the tenants were aware of the condition of the property and work needing to be carried out but they still elected to move in. __46626125
I am satisfied that the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy was unsatisfactory. The work necessary at the property went far beyond gardening, plastering and painting and some electrical work. The landlord’s commercial cleaning contractors did not address all the cleaning needed to make the property reasonably clean.
The timeline of activity at the premises shows that the tenants were either carrying out cleaning themselves, dealing with fleas and other problems, having tradesmen around to finish maintenance work or repair new problems from mid- November for at least six weeks. The first eight weeks were not what tenants should expect in a ‘normal’ tenancy. I have no reason to disbelieve the tenants claim that they spent a considerable number of hours with their friends to make the property more liveable.
The tenants have proved that the landlord failed to meet the requirements set out in section 45(1)(a)&(b) of the Act.
The tenants have claimed several amounts for compensation regarding the condition of the property. $4,820 for time assisting the landlord with A1’s case against a previous tenant, time spent bringing the property to a liveable standard, loss of income to do that, and time preparing for the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal cannot make an order for payment for the tenants assisting the landlord in another case. There was no legal contract between the parties regarding that assistance that the Tribunal was made aware of.
Time preparing for the Tribunal case is not recoverable because costs cannot be ordered by the Tribunal (see section 102 of the Act).
Regarding time spent cleaning and fixing the property, the tenants have set out the hours that they recall spending doing that work. There is always a difficulty with a claim such as this when it is lodged so long after the events. Memory of time taken is often not reliable. The Tribunal could take a different view about this information if the tenants had made a claim about this issue in December 2022 rather than August 2023. $1,560 for cleaning and cleaning products, curtain replacement, future moving costs and financial stress.
This is an unusual mix of items lumped into a single amount. The tenants have made a claim for curtains. They said that the curtains the landlord provided were not sufficient to replace the mouldy curtains. The Act does not give tenants the right to make purchases and claim from the landlord the amount they spent unless it is an emergency. If the landlord fails to provide what is necessary, tenants must make an application to the Tribunal and orders will be made by the Tribunal regarding the landlord’s failure. In addition, the tenants have not produced receipts for the purchase of curtains or cleaning products. I __46626126 accept that some items were purchased but do not know the exact cost. Evidence regarding these types of losses is usually based on receipts.
Regarding ‘future moving costs‘, the Tribunal makes orders about actual losses not possible losses. The reason why future losses are not ordered is because the loss may never occur. For example, the tenants may choose to stay at the property or may move because they buy a house. It is not the landlord’s responsibility to pay for a tenant’s moving costs in most circumstances. In the present case at the time of hearing, moving costs were not an actual loss.
The tenants did not provide evidence about their financial situation to show that there was a financial difficulty associated with the condition of the property. Even if they had provided that evidence, the claim is unlikely to have been upheld because the loss was not reasonably foreseeable. It would only be a foreseeable loss if the tenants had set out their financial situation for the landlord prior to signing the Agreement. $4,000 for physical stress arising from cleaning and fixing the property.
Physical stress from cleaning and fixing is not separately quantified in compensation orders. It is part of compensation resulting from having to clean.
The tenants have also claimed for stress for various reasons summarized below in italics. $5,000 for mental stress arising from the condition of the property, the property manager’s unprofessional behaviour and the effect of this on the tenants’ relationship. $3,500; the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property being interfered with regarding flea treatment, repairs and maintenance, and fear of unlawful entry by the A1.-
The tenants have claimed compensation for stress associated with the condition of the property, flea treatment and workmen being around frequently and for a long period of time. That is an understandable outcome for the tenants.
They have claimed compensation for stress on the ground that the property manager acted unprofessionally. While there could be a frustration when a property manager is perceived not to be doing the job well, the Tribunal is not a disciplinary Tribunal for property managers. In a claim by a tenant the Tribunal assesses whether a tenant’s rights have been breached, not whether a property manager is unprofessional.
The tenants have claimed for stress in their relationship. That is a difficult matter for the tenants to prove. The state of their relationship at the time the tenancy began is unknown. That means that it is not possible for anyone to quantify any deterioration in their relationship resulting from the effects of the tenancy. Not all relationships deteriorate with adversity. Some adversities __46626127 bring people closer together. I have considered the statements that the tenants presented from family and friends however it is not possible to quantify a loss regarding the tenants’ relationship from the information presented to the Tribunal.
The tenants have claimed compensation for stress because of the flea problem at the property. There was a flea problem prior to the tenancy commencing. A contractor used two flea bombs to eradicate the fleas. When the tenants advised that there were still fleas in the property the landlord arranged for another contractor to carry out further pest eradication three days after the tenancy began. The flea eradication bomb under the house inconvenienced the tenants because it was not safe to be in the premises while this work was carried out. I am satisfied that the landlord acted promptly to remedy the problem when fleas were found following the initial treatment. The courts have made it clear that tenants cannot expect a stress free experience in a tenancy. Houses are not perfect. Faults appear. The issue with the fleas is in the category of stress that tenants must expect from time to time. If the landlord ignored the problem, then that would be a different matter. Summary regarding compensation for the above events
For the reasons given above, I have determined that the landlord must pay $1,400.00 compensation to the tenants for their time spent making the property reasonably clean, the inconvenience with it not being reasonably clean at the commencement of the tenancy and a nominal amount for purchases during the first eight weeks of their tenancy. That is $300.00 per week for the first three weeks of their tenancy and $100 for the following five weeks. Unlawful entry
The tenants have claimed compensation for stress for unlawful entry to the property by the landlord. Landlords are lawfully able to go to the property without notice but cannot enter the premises unless with the tenant’s consent or by prior notice for a particular purpose. I am satisfied that the landlord gave notice when contractors were going to be at the property. It is possible that a contractor entered the premises by mistake however I cannot see where, during the tenancy, there was an ongoing problem of contractors or the property manager entering the premises (the house) without notice. I am not satisfied that there should be compensation ordered for fear of unlawful entry.
The tenants have claimed exemplary damages for unlawful entry by the landlord. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages. There is insufficient evidence that the landlord or an agent of the landlord intentionally committed the act of unlawful entry. __46626128 Did the landlord maintain the premises, and rectify all issues within a reasonable time after receiving a 14 day notice from the tenants?
As referred to above, section 45(1) of the Act requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to rectify matters within 14 days and did not maintain the premises. The landlord provided evidence showing that contractors were engaged to address problems.
I accept that over time the landlord did most of the remedial work required at the property. However the work was not always completed promptly and caused inconvenience to the tenants.
The landlord did fail to maintain the premises regarding the drainage system. This was a serious failure which is referred to in the next section of the decision. Did the landlord breach Healthy Home Standards (HHS) regarding drainage?
Section 27 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 provides that tenancy buildings “must have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall. The drainage system must include appropriate gutters, downpipes and drains...”.
At [Tenancy address suppressed] the rainwater from the roof travelled through a cut in the downpipe at ground level onto the land beside the house. This was not a drainage system that was designed to carry water away from the house. I carried it to the foundations of the house and into the garage. The flow of water around the foundation of the house is consistent with the tenants’ experience of mould in the bedrooms, on walls and furnishings in the winter months. I am satisfied that the drainage system at the property did not comply with HHS. Exemplary damages under s45(1A) of the Act
Under section 45(1A), a landlord failing to meet obligations in respect of cleanliness, maintenance, smoke alarms, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health, and safety requirements 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.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. __46626129
Exemplary damages can only be ordered where it is proved that the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally.
I have considered whether the landlord intended to provide the premises in an unclean state. I do not find that proved. The landlord sent several different contractors to clean the premises a few days before the tenancy began. The cost to the landlord for that work was considerable. The invoice for cleaning alone was $1,683.00.
I have considered whether the landlord intended to commit an unlawful act regarding maintenance and intended to commit an unlawful act regarding compliance with HHS. I am satisfied that the landlord intended to commit an unlawful act regarding both maintenance and HHS. I have reached that conclusion for the following reason. The tenants informed the landlord of drainage problems shortly after the tenancy began in November 2022. The landlord sent a plumber to the property in February 2023 and was notified by the plumber that a “new stormwater drainage is recommended”. Although the landlord was aware that the drainage was faulty and the tenants were complaining of mould and flooding and potholes, nothing was done to rectify the drainage system until a temporary fix in October 2023. The landlord did not get quotes to replace the system until about seven months after being advised that the drainage system was faulty.
I have considered the effect of the unlawful acts. I am satisfied that the problems that the tenants experienced regarding mould and dampness in the premises were significant and were most likely caused by the rainwater from the roof flooding onto the land. The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenants became concerned about their health and wellbeing because of the mould and dampness within the premises. This shows in their correspondence with the landlord. It is well known that mould can have serious health consequences for some people. The tenants’ stress related to the faulty drainage system was for the whole winter period.
I have considered the interest of the landlord and the public interest when considering whether it is just to order exemplary damages. The public interest is that tenancy premises are safe for tenants. Landlords who fail to comply with HHS should be discouraged from being lax about HHS by being fined.
The tenants have claimed $7,200 exemplary damages for unlawful acts covered by section 45(1A). This is the maximum that the Tribunal can order for all breaches referred to in sections 45(1)(a) to (ca). However the maximum amount is only ordered in the most egregious cases and where a landlord has appeared before the Tribunal a number of time for the same unlawful acts. I have ordered $4,200.00 exemplary damages be paid to the tenants by the landlord for unlawful acts of failing to maintain the premises and the breach of HHS. The amount I have ordered for exemplary damages includes an __466261210 assessment of the effect of the non-compliance on the tenants. Therefore the tenants’ request for compensation for the failure to maintain and for the breach of HHS is included in the exemplary damages order. Did the landlord mislead the tenants regarding a workshop/studio as part of the premises and if so, should compensation be ordered?
The tenants claim that they were misled about the property they were renting. The advertisement in Trademe referred to a “workshop and separate studio”. The landlord stated that the ad was a mistake and that the ad was changed in Trademe to “workshop bench and shelving”. The property manager’s evidence is that every prospective tenant was told of the mistake and that the Owners of the property were renting the “lean-to” “as is”. The tenants dispute that they were given that information by the property manager before signing the Agreement.
The landlord’s burden is to prove that the tenants were advised of the mistake. The landlord did not provide information from Trademe showing that the ad was corrected. The landlord has not been able to prove that the tenants were informed about the mistake. Based on the evidence available I am satisfied that the tenants were misled about the property and should be compensated for that. The tenants have claimed compensation of $1,640.00, being $40.00 per week for 41 weeks.
In considering the amount of compensation to be ordered I must have regard to Section 49 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act requires mitigation of loss. “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The tenants’ claim regarding the studio could have been addressed by a Tribunal much sooner if they had made an application to the Tribunal shortly after November 2022. An application at that time could have resulted in the Tribunal ordering the landlord to make the studio habitable. That would have meant that instead of the landlord having to pay for 41 weeks of compensation, an order from the Tribunal would see that money spent in rectification of the studio problems. I am satisfied that by waiting until over ten months to apply to the Tribunal regarding this matter, the tenants have not mitigated their loss. Compensation of $400.00 is ordered. This is $40 for a period of 10 weeks, which is about the time an application could have been heard in the Tribunal.

Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the Tenancy Agreement to the tenants?

__466261211

A landlord must ensure the Tenancy Agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenants claim that the Property Manager brought two pages of the Tenancy Agreement for [Tenant 2] to sign and that they did not receive a full copy of the tenancy agreement including HHS information until several weeks after the tenancy commenced.
The landlord’s response is that on 11 November 2022, the Property Manager attended the Property for a pre-tenancy inspection with [Tenant 2] and provided her with a copy of the Tenancy Agreement which includes a list of chattels. [Tenant 2] signed the Tenancy Agreement at the end of this meeting. The landlord said that on 8 December 2022, the landlord delivered a hard copy of the Tenancy Agreement with a Welcome Pack to [Tenant 2] and also sent [Tenant 2] with the Tenancy Agreement by email on 22 December 2022
The landlord did not provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy began. I find they have committed an unlawful act and the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
When considering section 109(3), and in particular the effect of the unlawful act, I am satisfied that there were no significant consequences resulting from delay in providing the Tenancy Agreement to the tenants. The effect does not justify an order for exemplary damages for this breach.

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information to the tenants?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord breached its obligation under section 13A(1CA) which provides that: the landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). __466261212
The landlord has provided a copy of the Tenancy Agreement signed by the Property Manager and [Tenant 2] on 11 November 2022. Pages 8 to 23 of the Agreement include all HHS information that is currently required to be in a Tenancy Agreement by regulations under section 138B(5) of the Act. The landlord is not in breach of the Act regarding section 13A(1CA).
The tenants have submitted that the landlord knowingly misled them regarding information supplied about compliance with HHS. The tenants claim that the landlord knowingly recorded in the Agreement that the premises was complaint regarding drainage when the landlord knew it wasn’t. They have claimed that the landlord committed an unlawful act in this regard.
The evidence shows that when the tenancy began it is most likely that the premises did not comply with HHS regarding drainage. That being proved, it does not necessarily follow that the landlord knew of the noncompliance at that time. The landlord had had the plumber at the property clearing the gutters in the days before the tenancy began. The plumber did not suggest that there was a problem with the drainage system. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord first became aware that the drainage system was noncompliant and needed replacement in early February 2023 when informed of that by [Plumber]. I do not find it proved that the landlord falsified the HHS information in the Agreement by recording drainage to be complaint when it wasn’t. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the issues raised in their claim, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4662612 — net $6,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for cleaning the property	$1,400.00	for cleaning the property
Rent reduction for misleading premises description	$400.00	Rent reduction for misleading premises description
Exemplary damages: Section 45(1A	$4,200.00	Section 45(1A
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,020.44

Claims and awards for application 4662612 — net $6,020.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: for cleaning the property

Amount: $1,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: for cleaning the property

Rent reduction for misleading premises description

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rent reduction for misleading premises description

Exemplary damages: Section 45(1A

Amount: $4,200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Section 45(1A

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $6,020.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $6,020.44

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

The respondent is Kapiti Coast A1 Rental Limited. [Redacted] was not a party to the tenancy contract.
Kapiti Coast A1 Realty Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $6,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: for cleaning the property $1,400.00 Rent reduction for misleading premises description $400.00 Exemplary damages: Section 45(1A) $4,200.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $6,020.44

Reasons

Is [Tenant 1] a tenant at [Tenancy address suppressed]?

Where there is dispute regarding who are tenants in a tenancy, the Tribunal is required to determine who tenants are. (see s77(2)(b)) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
[Tenant 2] stated that [Tenant 1] was always intended to be a tenant on the Tenancy Agreement (the Agreement) but the landlord failed to include his name on the Agreement. [Tenant 1] is [Tenant 2]’s partner. He was at the property __46626122 when the tenancy began. The landlord should have recorded his name on the Agreement. He is a tenant at the property and a party in this application. Matters to be determined.
In summary the issues to be determined for compensation and exemplary damages are: a. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair? b. Did the landlord maintain the premises? c. Did the landlord breach Healthy Home Standards (HHS)? d. Was the advertisement for the property misleading regarding a studio? e. Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the Tenancy Agreement to the tenants before the tenancy began? f. Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information to the tenants? Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and a reasonable state of repair? (see sections 45(1)(a)&(b) the Act)
Under section 45(1) of the Act, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord breached its obligations regarding cleanliness and maintenance of the premises. They produced a document that recorded all the problems that they immediately identified as needing the landlord’s attention. It is a detailed list which I could summarize however I believe it is better to include it in full in the decision as it does reflect the state of the property that the tenants experienced and on which part of their claim is based. “Property Inspection Report for [Tenancy address suppressed] Inspection completed on 11/11/2022 Tenancy started 12/11/2022 Entrance to house The ceiling at front door has water damage and is crumbling. Front entrance lights do not work, light bulbs missing, front door lock is not secure, no keys for deadlock, security system not functional. Hardened of plaster covering entrance tiles, nails and screws covering walls, skirting boards, covered in filth and fly dirt ceiling & walls covered by cobwebs and holes, overwhelming smell of cigarette smoke and all surfaces, plugs and cords covered with sticky yellow nicotine film, smell of dampness. Kitchen Kitchen floors covered in stains and paint, extremely dirty with rips and tears, all cupboards dirty, walls and skirting covered in fly dirt, nicotine __46626123 film, holes and dents. drawer cabinetry loose and shaky, kitchen range hood has unsafe power switch, covered with fat on exterior and dripping with fat in the filters, no light, built-in water purifier hasn't been serviced, all switches and light fittings dirty, lino torn and coming away in doorway between kitchen and laundry. Laundry Door and locks damaged, no key for deadlock, multiple holes, cobwebs and nicotine film covering all surfaces. Power point dangerous. Lounge Huge flea infestation throughout entire house, black mold and stains on ripped curtains, nicotine film and cobwebs on all surfaces, musty smell throughout, 7 missing light bulbs, wobbly or broken light sockets for wall lamps, ceiling and beams dripping with yellow nicotine film, dangerous power points, fire place full of rubbish and unsure when it had flu clean & service, heat pump in need of service and the unit and filter are covered yellow nicotine film, broken or loose window latches on all windows, range slider locks are loose and unsecure, no keys for deadlocks, water leak in window causing black mold and damage to concrete render, no smoke detectors in living area. Stains and rips in carpet. Main Hallway Holes in wall and uncleaned and carpet has fleas and cockroaches found in the hot water cupboards, ceiling and walls covered with holes from nails hooks and screws, cobwebs and fly dirt covering all surfaces. Smells of cigarette smoke and dampness. Holes in the wall, dirty linen and drying cupboard. Room 1 No curtains, fly dirt and cobwebs everywhere, nail holes and stickers over all of the walls, nicotine staining and musty damp smell, carpet stains and rips, flea and cockroaches, black mold on walls, no insects screen. Window latch unsecure. Bathroom Window latch broken, bath tap leaking, smoke butt found in window fame, shaver power point not working, left shower door side is broken at the bottom and unsecure shower rose, seal in shower door coming away, plug in shower was full of grime and black mold, nicotine film dripping from shower unit, light faulty and & heat lamp not working, bathroom cupboards dirty, heated towel rack falling apart and not going, No insects screen, paint on walls, holes in walls from nails hooks and screws, in clean floor and walls. Toilet Broken toilet seat, broken toilet cysteine, window latch and window needs fixing, fowl smelling and extremely dirty, nicotine and fly dirt coating in all surfaces in toilet, no insects screen, floor dirty Room 2 Smells of nicotine and fly dirt on celling and walls, closet and drawers dirty and dusty, concrete walls not clean and covered in black mold, one curtain that didn't cover window also had black mold, no insect screens, pelmet loose, fleas and cockroaches, door handle missing window latches __46626124 broken, mirror light broken, closet door broken off, holes in walls from nails hooks and screws. Room 3 Smells damp and smoky, curtains and walls covered in black mold, fly dirt, cobwebs and nicotine stains on all surfaces, 2 broken wardrobe doors, insects screens broken, flea and cockroach infestation, window and door latches broken, no key for deadlock, main light not working, missing power point cover, holes in walls from nails hooks and screws, stained and damaged carpet. Light not working & bulb missing. Garage No lights working, garage doors is faulty, only one remote and no key for garage door, lot of rubbish left behind side of garage and also in the garage, workshop not cleaned and mold, stains and cobwebs everywhere, studio uninhabitable and unsafe for purpose, faulty power points, mold and algae covering the roof and walls, inside and out. Outside Letter box is broken, all front awning are broken and moldy, a lot of exposed wiring and boxes for TV and telephone box's, security lights I broken at font and at back of house, gardens and lawns not maintained and very overgrown, pot holes in driveway, fences and gates falling apart, moss and algae on exterior walls, skylights covered in moss, garden edging fallen apart and exposed nails, house gutters full of weeds gate locks are rusted and not working, unusable clothesline wire and the structure collapsing, numerous items of rotten and broken furniture left behind, rubbish and debris piled up around the garden and behind the garage, exterior walls of garage & studio covered in mold moss and algae, back door clear light full of mold and debris, roof eaves rotting and possibly leaking, rusty old rubbish screwed to wall outside wash house, piles of wood, hoses and general rubbish left in backyard and outside the back door, leaking water tap up in the backyard, no front gate for security, many timber outside structures and fencing rotten and falling down.”
The tenants also supplied photographs taken at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs do not cover all matters raised in the tenants’ inspection notes but reflect the accuracy of many of the findings the tenants made about the condition of the premises.
In response the landlord provided evidence showing that before the tenancy commenced on 12 November 2022, the landlord contracted commercial cleaners, carpet cleaners, and garden maintenance contractors to clean the property. The landlord provided photos of the property which are dated on the day before the tenancy began. They do not show the property in the same light as the tenant’s photos. The landlord stated that the tenants were advised that maintenance and repairs were still being carried out including gardening, plastering and painting and some electrical work. The landlord stated that the tenants were aware of the condition of the property and work needing to be carried out but they still elected to move in. __46626125
I am satisfied that the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy was unsatisfactory. The work necessary at the property went far beyond gardening, plastering and painting and some electrical work. The landlord’s commercial cleaning contractors did not address all the cleaning needed to make the property reasonably clean.
The timeline of activity at the premises shows that the tenants were either carrying out cleaning themselves, dealing with fleas and other problems, having tradesmen around to finish maintenance work or repair new problems from mid- November for at least six weeks. The first eight weeks were not what tenants should expect in a ‘normal’ tenancy. I have no reason to disbelieve the tenants claim that they spent a considerable number of hours with their friends to make the property more liveable.
The tenants have proved that the landlord failed to meet the requirements set out in section 45(1)(a)&(b) of the Act.
The tenants have claimed several amounts for compensation regarding the condition of the property. $4,820 for time assisting the landlord with A1’s case against a previous tenant, time spent bringing the property to a liveable standard, loss of income to do that, and time preparing for the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal cannot make an order for payment for the tenants assisting the landlord in another case. There was no legal contract between the parties regarding that assistance that the Tribunal was made aware of.
Time preparing for the Tribunal case is not recoverable because costs cannot be ordered by the Tribunal (see section 102 of the Act).
Regarding time spent cleaning and fixing the property, the tenants have set out the hours that they recall spending doing that work. There is always a difficulty with a claim such as this when it is lodged so long after the events. Memory of time taken is often not reliable. The Tribunal could take a different view about this information if the tenants had made a claim about this issue in December 2022 rather than August 2023. $1,560 for cleaning and cleaning products, curtain replacement, future moving costs and financial stress.
This is an unusual mix of items lumped into a single amount. The tenants have made a claim for curtains. They said that the curtains the landlord provided were not sufficient to replace the mouldy curtains. The Act does not give tenants the right to make purchases and claim from the landlord the amount they spent unless it is an emergency. If the landlord fails to provide what is necessary, tenants must make an application to the Tribunal and orders will be made by the Tribunal regarding the landlord’s failure. In addition, the tenants have not produced receipts for the purchase of curtains or cleaning products. I __46626126 accept that some items were purchased but do not know the exact cost. Evidence regarding these types of losses is usually based on receipts.
Regarding ‘future moving costs‘, the Tribunal makes orders about actual losses not possible losses. The reason why future losses are not ordered is because the loss may never occur. For example, the tenants may choose to stay at the property or may move because they buy a house. It is not the landlord’s responsibility to pay for a tenant’s moving costs in most circumstances. In the present case at the time of hearing, moving costs were not an actual loss.
The tenants did not provide evidence about their financial situation to show that there was a financial difficulty associated with the condition of the property. Even if they had provided that evidence, the claim is unlikely to have been upheld because the loss was not reasonably foreseeable. It would only be a foreseeable loss if the tenants had set out their financial situation for the landlord prior to signing the Agreement. $4,000 for physical stress arising from cleaning and fixing the property.
Physical stress from cleaning and fixing is not separately quantified in compensation orders. It is part of compensation resulting from having to clean.
The tenants have also claimed for stress for various reasons summarized below in italics. $5,000 for mental stress arising from the condition of the property, the property manager’s unprofessional behaviour and the effect of this on the tenants’ relationship. $3,500; the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property being interfered with regarding flea treatment, repairs and maintenance, and fear of unlawful entry by the A1.-
The tenants have claimed compensation for stress associated with the condition of the property, flea treatment and workmen being around frequently and for a long period of time. That is an understandable outcome for the tenants.
They have claimed compensation for stress on the ground that the property manager acted unprofessionally. While there could be a frustration when a property manager is perceived not to be doing the job well, the Tribunal is not a disciplinary Tribunal for property managers. In a claim by a tenant the Tribunal assesses whether a tenant’s rights have been breached, not whether a property manager is unprofessional.
The tenants have claimed for stress in their relationship. That is a difficult matter for the tenants to prove. The state of their relationship at the time the tenancy began is unknown. That means that it is not possible for anyone to quantify any deterioration in their relationship resulting from the effects of the tenancy. Not all relationships deteriorate with adversity. Some adversities __46626127 bring people closer together. I have considered the statements that the tenants presented from family and friends however it is not possible to quantify a loss regarding the tenants’ relationship from the information presented to the Tribunal.
The tenants have claimed compensation for stress because of the flea problem at the property. There was a flea problem prior to the tenancy commencing. A contractor used two flea bombs to eradicate the fleas. When the tenants advised that there were still fleas in the property the landlord arranged for another contractor to carry out further pest eradication three days after the tenancy began. The flea eradication bomb under the house inconvenienced the tenants because it was not safe to be in the premises while this work was carried out. I am satisfied that the landlord acted promptly to remedy the problem when fleas were found following the initial treatment. The courts have made it clear that tenants cannot expect a stress free experience in a tenancy. Houses are not perfect. Faults appear. The issue with the fleas is in the category of stress that tenants must expect from time to time. If the landlord ignored the problem, then that would be a different matter. Summary regarding compensation for the above events
For the reasons given above, I have determined that the landlord must pay $1,400.00 compensation to the tenants for their time spent making the property reasonably clean, the inconvenience with it not being reasonably clean at the commencement of the tenancy and a nominal amount for purchases during the first eight weeks of their tenancy. That is $300.00 per week for the first three weeks of their tenancy and $100 for the following five weeks. Unlawful entry
The tenants have claimed compensation for stress for unlawful entry to the property by the landlord. Landlords are lawfully able to go to the property without notice but cannot enter the premises unless with the tenant’s consent or by prior notice for a particular purpose. I am satisfied that the landlord gave notice when contractors were going to be at the property. It is possible that a contractor entered the premises by mistake however I cannot see where, during the tenancy, there was an ongoing problem of contractors or the property manager entering the premises (the house) without notice. I am not satisfied that there should be compensation ordered for fear of unlawful entry.
The tenants have claimed exemplary damages for unlawful entry by the landlord. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages. There is insufficient evidence that the landlord or an agent of the landlord intentionally committed the act of unlawful entry. __46626128 Did the landlord maintain the premises, and rectify all issues within a reasonable time after receiving a 14 day notice from the tenants?
As referred to above, section 45(1) of the Act requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to rectify matters within 14 days and did not maintain the premises. The landlord provided evidence showing that contractors were engaged to address problems.
I accept that over time the landlord did most of the remedial work required at the property. However the work was not always completed promptly and caused inconvenience to the tenants.
The landlord did fail to maintain the premises regarding the drainage system. This was a serious failure which is referred to in the next section of the decision. Did the landlord breach Healthy Home Standards (HHS) regarding drainage?
Section 27 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 provides that tenancy buildings “must have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall. The drainage system must include appropriate gutters, downpipes and drains...”.
At [Tenancy address suppressed] the rainwater from the roof travelled through a cut in the downpipe at ground level onto the land beside the house. This was not a drainage system that was designed to carry water away from the house. I carried it to the foundations of the house and into the garage. The flow of water around the foundation of the house is consistent with the tenants’ experience of mould in the bedrooms, on walls and furnishings in the winter months. I am satisfied that the drainage system at the property did not comply with HHS. Exemplary damages under s45(1A) of the Act
Under section 45(1A), a landlord failing to meet obligations in respect of cleanliness, maintenance, smoke alarms, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health, and safety requirements 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.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. __46626129
Exemplary damages can only be ordered where it is proved that the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally.
I have considered whether the landlord intended to provide the premises in an unclean state. I do not find that proved. The landlord sent several different contractors to clean the premises a few days before the tenancy began. The cost to the landlord for that work was considerable. The invoice for cleaning alone was $1,683.00.
I have considered whether the landlord intended to commit an unlawful act regarding maintenance and intended to commit an unlawful act regarding compliance with HHS. I am satisfied that the landlord intended to commit an unlawful act regarding both maintenance and HHS. I have reached that conclusion for the following reason. The tenants informed the landlord of drainage problems shortly after the tenancy began in November 2022. The landlord sent a plumber to the property in February 2023 and was notified by the plumber that a “new stormwater drainage is recommended”. Although the landlord was aware that the drainage was faulty and the tenants were complaining of mould and flooding and potholes, nothing was done to rectify the drainage system until a temporary fix in October 2023. The landlord did not get quotes to replace the system until about seven months after being advised that the drainage system was faulty.
I have considered the effect of the unlawful acts. I am satisfied that the problems that the tenants experienced regarding mould and dampness in the premises were significant and were most likely caused by the rainwater from the roof flooding onto the land. The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenants became concerned about their health and wellbeing because of the mould and dampness within the premises. This shows in their correspondence with the landlord. It is well known that mould can have serious health consequences for some people. The tenants’ stress related to the faulty drainage system was for the whole winter period.
I have considered the interest of the landlord and the public interest when considering whether it is just to order exemplary damages. The public interest is that tenancy premises are safe for tenants. Landlords who fail to comply with HHS should be discouraged from being lax about HHS by being fined.
The tenants have claimed $7,200 exemplary damages for unlawful acts covered by section 45(1A). This is the maximum that the Tribunal can order for all breaches referred to in sections 45(1)(a) to (ca). However the maximum amount is only ordered in the most egregious cases and where a landlord has appeared before the Tribunal a number of time for the same unlawful acts. I have ordered $4,200.00 exemplary damages be paid to the tenants by the landlord for unlawful acts of failing to maintain the premises and the breach of HHS. The amount I have ordered for exemplary damages includes an __466261210 assessment of the effect of the non-compliance on the tenants. Therefore the tenants’ request for compensation for the failure to maintain and for the breach of HHS is included in the exemplary damages order. Did the landlord mislead the tenants regarding a workshop/studio as part of the premises and if so, should compensation be ordered?
The tenants claim that they were misled about the property they were renting. The advertisement in Trademe referred to a “workshop and separate studio”. The landlord stated that the ad was a mistake and that the ad was changed in Trademe to “workshop bench and shelving”. The property manager’s evidence is that every prospective tenant was told of the mistake and that the Owners of the property were renting the “lean-to” “as is”. The tenants dispute that they were given that information by the property manager before signing the Agreement.
The landlord’s burden is to prove that the tenants were advised of the mistake. The landlord did not provide information from Trademe showing that the ad was corrected. The landlord has not been able to prove that the tenants were informed about the mistake. Based on the evidence available I am satisfied that the tenants were misled about the property and should be compensated for that. The tenants have claimed compensation of $1,640.00, being $40.00 per week for 41 weeks.
In considering the amount of compensation to be ordered I must have regard to Section 49 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act requires mitigation of loss. “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The tenants’ claim regarding the studio could have been addressed by a Tribunal much sooner if they had made an application to the Tribunal shortly after November 2022. An application at that time could have resulted in the Tribunal ordering the landlord to make the studio habitable. That would have meant that instead of the landlord having to pay for 41 weeks of compensation, an order from the Tribunal would see that money spent in rectification of the studio problems. I am satisfied that by waiting until over ten months to apply to the Tribunal regarding this matter, the tenants have not mitigated their loss. Compensation of $400.00 is ordered. This is $40 for a period of 10 weeks, which is about the time an application could have been heard in the Tribunal.

Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the Tenancy Agreement to the tenants?

__466261211

A landlord must ensure the Tenancy Agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenants claim that the Property Manager brought two pages of the Tenancy Agreement for [Tenant 2] to sign and that they did not receive a full copy of the tenancy agreement including HHS information until several weeks after the tenancy commenced.
The landlord’s response is that on 11 November 2022, the Property Manager attended the Property for a pre-tenancy inspection with [Tenant 2] and provided her with a copy of the Tenancy Agreement which includes a list of chattels. [Tenant 2] signed the Tenancy Agreement at the end of this meeting. The landlord said that on 8 December 2022, the landlord delivered a hard copy of the Tenancy Agreement with a Welcome Pack to [Tenant 2] and also sent [Tenant 2] with the Tenancy Agreement by email on 22 December 2022
The landlord did not provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy began. I find they have committed an unlawful act and the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
When considering section 109(3), and in particular the effect of the unlawful act, I am satisfied that there were no significant consequences resulting from delay in providing the Tenancy Agreement to the tenants. The effect does not justify an order for exemplary damages for this breach.

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information to the tenants?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord breached its obligation under section 13A(1CA) which provides that: the landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). __466261212
The landlord has provided a copy of the Tenancy Agreement signed by the Property Manager and [Tenant 2] on 11 November 2022. Pages 8 to 23 of the Agreement include all HHS information that is currently required to be in a Tenancy Agreement by regulations under section 138B(5) of the Act. The landlord is not in breach of the Act regarding section 13A(1CA).
The tenants have submitted that the landlord knowingly misled them regarding information supplied about compliance with HHS. The tenants claim that the landlord knowingly recorded in the Agreement that the premises was complaint regarding drainage when the landlord knew it wasn’t. They have claimed that the landlord committed an unlawful act in this regard.
The evidence shows that when the tenancy began it is most likely that the premises did not comply with HHS regarding drainage. That being proved, it does not necessarily follow that the landlord knew of the noncompliance at that time. The landlord had had the plumber at the property clearing the gutters in the days before the tenancy began. The plumber did not suggest that there was a problem with the drainage system. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord first became aware that the drainage system was noncompliant and needed replacement in early February 2023 when informed of that by [Plumber]. I do not find it proved that the landlord falsified the HHS information in the Agreement by recording drainage to be complaint when it wasn’t. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the issues raised in their claim, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4662612 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4662612 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the Tenancy Agreement to the tenants?

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information to the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the Tenancy Agreement to the tenants?

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information to the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions