What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666931 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4666931?

The reconciled net award was $600.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666931?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10904995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666931 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4666931?

The reconciled net award was $600.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666931?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10904995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4666931 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666931 — net $600.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$600.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666931 — net $600.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$600.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name, the names of her whanau, and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $3,320.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the two hearings. [The tenant’s representative] represented his mother, [The tenant/s], who is the tenant in these proceedings. The [tenant’s support person] attended in support. Ms Roberta Perese appeared on behalf of the landlord, Kainga Ora. The second hearing was conducted by teleconference and was attended by [The tenant/s], [The tenant’s representative], the [tenant’s daughter] in support and Ms Jasmine Gray for the landlord. Background
This is a tenancy of long duration, which commenced on 14 January 1991. The premises is a three-bedroom home which has been modified with a ramp and walk in shower. The rent is $105.00 per week.
The tenant and her whanau raised concerns with the landlord about the condition of the premises. There have been issues with the foundation of the property, along with the need for repairs. The parties have attended mediation. The tenant has highlighted delays in the repairs being undertaken and the disruption as a result of these repairs. [The tenant/s] health issues were also of concern. Being able to accommodate her medical needs has created challenges for both parties.
The tenant has applied for a work order, compensation, and exemplary damages. After a case conference, the following issues were identified for consideration at the hearing: • Work orders • Compensation • Exemplary damages for i. breach of the duty to maintain ii. breach of quiet enjoyment iii. breach by providing false or misleading information ($900 maximum section 13A, Residential Tenancies Act 1986) • Filing fee refund First hearing and issuing of work order
A hearing was held and both parties provided evidence and submissions addressing the above issues. The tenant states an accident occurred on 26 December 2021, when a van drove into the property through the fence. The need for repairs to the house was raised with the landlord. Following mediation in October 2023, the landlord undertook some foundation work. A few days after the foundation work was done, there was flooding under the house. Other repairs were completed, including to the roof, and the chimney was demolished. The tenant’s evidence included a written statement from [The tenant/s] and the [tenant’s daughter], who lives with her mother at the premises.
After completion of the exterior work, the landlord was concerned about the effect on [The tenant/s] health if she were to remain in the premises when the interior work was being undertaken. The tenant and her whanau sought orders for the interior work to be completed while [The tenant/s] remained in the premises. The landlord explained the reasons for its concerns, providing detailed submissions. The landlord also provided reports concerning the foundation work, property inspections, and work log entries.
In summary, the landlord submitted that it had met its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), by taking all reasonable steps to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, in accordance with section 45(1)(b). It had also not breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment as a result of ongoing issues with access for the purpose of maintenance.
In relation to the work order, the parties reached agreement and the following work order was issued by the Tribunal on 18 April 2024, requiring the landlord to carry our repair work to the premises, as set out below:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 2 May 2024: a. Complete work on the flooring in the tenant’s bedroom and hallway, noting that the carpet in these areas has now been removed by the tenant’s whanau. The landlord has indicated that the carpet is to be replaced with vinyl. b. When undertaking the above work, the landlord is to ensure the affected areas are adequately sealed off from the rest of the premises. c. The tenant and her whanau agree to arrange nursing or other suitable medical support for the tenant while this work is being undertaken by the landlord. The medical support is to be in place for the duration of this work.
The landlord must repair the cracks in the walls of the premises and will endeavour to complete this work by 2 May 2024. Should the landlord be unable to complete this work by 2 May 2024, the landlord and tenant agree to work together to formulate a plan by 2 May 2024 for completion of this work within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord agrees to use its best endeavours to complete this work by 16 May 2024.
When repairing the cracks in the walls, the landlord is to ensure the affected areas are adequately sealed off from the rest of the premises, and that air extraction measures are put in place to protect the tenant from dust and vapours. The tenant and her whanau agree to arrange nursing or other suitable medical support for the tenant while this work is being undertaken by the landlord. The medical support is to be in place for the duration of this work.
The landlord agrees to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement to the Tribunal and the tenant by 19 April 2024.
The landlord agrees to investigate the issues regarding the windows and doors, which the tenant reports are not closing properly. Second hearing and events following the work order
At the second hearing, the parties provided an update concerning the work undertaken. The landlord advised that the work order was completed, noting that the cracks had been fixed in the kitchen and dining area, power points were put into the kitchen, lights and heater installed in bedroom 2. There was also some work in bedroom 1.
The tenant provided a written response to the landlord’s evidence and submissions. [The tenant’s representative] noted that nothing was completed by 2 May 2024, however, once Ms Margaret Walker took over the management of the case, a meeting was held on 13 May 2024, a plan was formulated, and work began on 20 May 2024. [The tenant’s representative] indicated that the internal work had been done. [The tenant/s] was in hospital for a week when the work was happening. There were no extractor fans used. [The tenant’s representative] confirmed that the cracks had been repaired, and internal painting was done after the cracks were plastered over. The windows and doors had been fixed (for now).
So, it seems, for the most part, the internal work has been completed. However, [The tenant’s representative] notes that there was still the issue of the pooling of water under his mother’s bedroom, which needed to be investigated. He felt that since the levelling work was done, they had been living in an unhealthy and cold house. The legal framework
In this jurisdiction the applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the tenant (the applicant in this case) must establish, with evidence, that her claim is “more likely than not.” For the Tribunal to find in her favour, the tenant must be able to show that the landlord has been in breach of a legal obligation.
Under section 45(1)(a)-(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the RTA.
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the RTA or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA, and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. 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 RTA. Repairs and Maintenance
As noted above, the landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 3 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be. 4
In this case, a work order was issued, as the Tribunal was satisfied that the landlord had an obligation to carry out the interior repair work.

When was the landlord notified of the need for repairs?

The tenant states the need for repairs arose after the van accident, when the van hit the house. The date of the accident is noted in the tenant’s submissions as 25 December 2021. While noting the written statements provided, there is no supporting evidence of the communication with the landlord regarding the need for repairs around this time.
As part of its evidence the landlord has provided its electronic case notes. These notes also do not show that the tenant requested repairs in relation to an accident involving the van in December 2021. There is a note that the [tenant’s daughter] 1 Section 45(1)(b) 2 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 3 Section 40(1)(d) 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085 had reported an incident when a van drove into the side of the house on 30 December 2020. It was also recorded that no further support was required.
However, the notes do show that the [tenant’s daughter], on behalf of her mother, contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023 about the downstairs laundry being affected by flood water, and asked for assistance with cleaning downstairs. There were follow up calls on 10 February and 17 February 2023. There is a record of a property visit by the landlord on 20 February 2023, but it seems nothing further was done in response to their request for removal of the damp carpet and its replacement.
[The tenant’s representative] and the [tenant’s daughter] then attended the landlord’s office on 19 May 2023 regarding the need for repairs and maintenance. There was no further contact by the landlord until 30 June 2023, to arrange a meeting at the premises, which took place on 4 July 2023.
Therefore, from the evidence provided to me, I find that there were unreasonable delays in the landlord responding to the tenant’s initial request for repairs on 2 February 2023. It was not until the meeting on 4 July 2023, 5 months later, that steps were taken to investigate the issues and start the necessary repair work.
The tenant issued a 14 day notice on 30 July 2023, referring to general health and safety concerns. There is also the letter of 24 August 2023, setting out the items that were to be addressed. Foundation work
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that, once the landlord had the meeting with the tenant and her whanau on 4 July 2023, the overall timeframe for completion of the necessary foundation work was reasonable. I note that the tenant provided a written list of problems dated 4 July 2023. There was a site visit by the landlord and contractors on 13 July 2023. A Foundation Investigation Report was completed by [The Foundation] following this site visit.
The Foundation Investigation Report showed that the property had excessive subsidence and there was subsidence damage throughout the home, particularly around the northern side. Other issues were the missing and/or substandard pile- to-bearer fixings. It was recommended that the property be relevelled to prevent further subsidence damage, new fixings be installed to prevent unwanted movement, and underpins be installed to prevent further subsidence and subsidence damage. Before the work could begin, it was requested that the area beneath the house be cleared, due to the health and safety risk to [The Foundation’s] employees.
The landlord requested that the tenant remove the items stored under the house and clear the backyard. This was reported as being completed in October 2023.
The landlord has explained that the foundation work had to be undertaken after completion of the roofing work, which was scheduled to start on 6 November and was due for completion by 20 November 2023. The foundation work was expected to take 5 working days (although the report indicates 8 working days). The foundation and roofing work was finally completed on 15 December 2023. The landlord notes the tenant was able to remain in the premises while this external work was being completed. Fireplace
The tenant asked the landlord to remedy the fireplace. Following its investigation, involving a contractor from [Company] visiting the premises on 19 July 2023, the landlord decided to remove the fireplace. This was on the basis of the contractor’s report indicating the fireplace was no longer safe to be used, as the firebox had rusted, the flue had fallen down, and there was no baffle plate. Therefore, the landlord opted to install a heat pump.
While I note the tenant’s preference to continue to use the fireplace, in the circumstances, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, in view of the safety concerns expressed by the contractor. The landlord also had to factor in its obligations to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, and a heat pump is regarded as an efficient heating option for most homes. Interior work
The tenant’s list of repair and maintenance requests identified a number of issues. The items included repairing the cracks in the walls, replacing the carpet in [The tenant/s] bedroom and hallway, replacing the heater, and patching the holes.
The whanau highlighted [The tenant/s] medical issues, the fact that she was on dialysis, and the potential impact of dust, vapours, and noise from contractors carrying out the work. The landlord spoke to the tenant and her whanau on 15 November 2023 regarding the interior work. The whanau preferred that [The tenant/s] remain in the premises while the work was being carried out. Some options were discussed, including temporary accommodation, a mobile dialysis unit, or transfer to another property. These options were declined. The landlord states that it had tried to take reasonable steps to resolve the impasse.
On the other hand, the tenant notes they had offered alternatives, which were not accepted by the landlord. It is understandable that the landlord was being mindful of [The tenant/s] medical needs, and did not want to jeopardise her health and safety. Therefore, it was being cautious in its approach to the repairs.
However, there is also a need for pragmatism in this situation. [The tenant/s] whanau have demonstrated that there were other options available to the landlord that would have met [The tenant/s] medical and health needs while also allowing the work to be undertaken. The only options the landlord appeared willing to consider were those involving the tenant and her whanau moving out of the premises. The feasibility of her remaining was not adequately explored. Accordingly, I find there has been an unreasonable delay in the interior repair work being undertaken by the landlord.
I consider that most of the work could have been completed within one month. The foundation work was completed on 15 December 2023. So, the interior work could have started soon afterwards. Taking into account the holiday period, and the difficulties in finding suitable contractors during this period, it is reasonable to expect this work to be completed by the end of January/ mid February 2024. After mid-February 2024, I consider the delay in completing the work to be unreasonable. Compensation for repair and maintenance issues
The tenants initially claimed $60,000.00 in compensation (in the application) and this was revised to $98,891.76.
In terms of the exterior repair and maintenance, I find the tenant is to be compensated for the 5 month delay in the landlord investigating the issues raised in February 2023. Based on the rent of $105.00 per week, she ought to be compensated $35.00 per week (33% of her weekly rent) for the 5 month period. This is a total of $700.00.
In terms of the interior repairs, in addition to the 5 month delay in investigating the issues, there were further delays until the work was finally completed. I note the tenant’s concerns about the landlord not complying with the timeframe in the work order. Taking into account the nature and duration of these issues, the resulting effect for the tenant, she is to be compensated in the amount of $1,300.00.
The tenant is also to be compensated for the additional cleaning, noting that she incurred $300.00 in cleaning costs. She was unable to have full use of the laundry for a 6 month period, and is to be compensated in the amount of $500.00.
In the absence of medical evidence to show that the condition of the premises was the cause of the tenant’s medical issues, or the need to have caregivers, there is no award for the associated costs claimed. Exemplary damages for repair and maintenance issues
The tenant also claims exemplary damages. For this to be awarded, the test for exemplary damages must be met. This is set out in section 109(3) of the RTA, and requires, as a precondition, that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally. An intentional act is a deliberate act, not a negligent or careless oversight, nor does it catch mere incompetence. In this case, I find that the required intent for exemplary damages is not met, so there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. Section 38(1) of the RTA states that the tenant is entitled to have “quiet enjoyment” of the premises without interruption by the landlord or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf. This provision imposes a limited duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises. 5 Section 38(2) of the RTA further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 6 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.
Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person." 7
In view of the disruption arising from the repair and maintenance work, I find there has been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Taking into account the nature of the disruption, the likely duration, and the resulting effect, the tenant is to be compensated in the amount of $500.00.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages arising from this breach is not supported, as the level of disruption does not amount to harassment. Therefore, there is no award for exemplary damages. 5 ‘Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice’ 4 th edition, D. Grinlinton (2012) 6 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 7 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. Landlord’s statements or information
The tenant alleges the landlord has provided false or misleading information under section 13A of the RTA. However, the basis of this claim is unclear, and therefore, it is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenant has been substantially successful with her application, the landlord is to pay the tenant’s filing fee.
The tenant’s request for name suppression is granted on the same basis.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666931 — 14-day notice

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666931 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When was the landlord notified of the need for repairs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When was the landlord notified of the need for repairs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions