What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4667150 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 32 Churchill Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4667150?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4667150?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4667150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9569707-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4667150 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 32 Churchill Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4667150?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4667150?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4667150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9569707-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Churchill Avenue, Wairoa, Wairoa 4108 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4667150 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4667150 — net $3,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,620.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4667150 — net $3,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,620.44

Order

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 32 Churchill Avenue, Wairoa, Wairoa 4108 at 11:59pm on Saturday 11 November 2023.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,620.44 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing, along with their representative, [The tenant’s representative]. [The landlord’s representative] and [The property manager/s] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenants applied for attempt to terminate without grounds, retaliatory notice, notice to quit, failure to maintain, breach of Healthy Homes Standards in relation to moisture and drainage, work order, compensation/damages, exemplary damages and refund of the filing fee.
The tenancy began on 18 June 2012. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants said the landlord failed to maintain the property in the following ways: a. Leaking insinkerator under the kitchen sink. b. Hole and leak in dining room ceiling letting through water during rain. c. Latch broken on lounge windows. d. Shower that had depleted sealant and broken shower handle. Also, there was a request to install a shower dome, which was initially agreed to but not completed and the fan extractor provided did not work. Constant mould was in the bathroom. e. Bath that had depleted sealant and blocked. f. Hole in bathroom through which rats have been entering the house. g. Laundry windows with cracked pane and rotted frame. h. Wood burner with missing damper knobs. i. Garage/car port – damaged ceiling panel, door too heavy for hinges, minor roof leak in car port from cracked skylights. j. Spouting that needed clearing and reaffixing, loose downpipe. k. Hole in laundry ceiling, caused by a builder’s apprentice falling through when the roof was replaced in 2022. l. Leak in hot water system, which caused damage to the hallway wall and which the tenants said increased their power bills. m. Leaks around the chimney after the roof was replaced in 2022. n. House damper than it should be overall, with regular mould.
There were numerous property inspection reports provided from 2017 to 2022 completed at least annually but at times a few times per year, which detailed most of the above-named issues with the property.
The property inspection reports show repeated requests from the tenants about multiple issues from 2017 through to 2022, some of which the tenants said are continuing issues with the property currently, for the landlord to repair most of the issues outlined above. Some photographs of the issues and damage were provided by the tenants. The photographs showed: a. a hole in the dining room ceiling which was boarded up and had large gaps around the edges of the board, thus letting in water. b. a large hole in the laundry ceiling where you can see the insulation behind the ceiling. c. the damaged hallway wall, caused by the leak between the bathroom and toilet. d. the hole between the bath and shower through which the tenants said rats come in. e. mould on the bathroom wall above the new wall lining installed. f. the broken insinkerator. g. the laundry windows without glass, with rotting frames and water moisture.
The landlord said they attempted to repair the hole in the ceiling in the dining room without getting the roof replaced but eventually they had to get a new room put on in September 2022. They said a new shower was not installed as the current one was fine, but they put in an extraction fan, put in aquiline rather than serotone and replaced the shower walls. They did not install a shower dome as they believed the extractor fan was adequate. The landlord believed the tenant should be regularly cleaning the mould. [The tenant/s] said she regularly cleans off the mould every 6 weeks or so and opens doors, windows and said the extractor fan is put on but a bigger fan is required, and the shower walls were put up over the old walls and so the problem of condensation and mould remains.
The landlord said they have found it hard to get a plumber to repair the leak in the hot water system that has caused damage to the hallway wall. [The tenant/s] said she told the landlord 3 years ago about this issue and that their power bills are too high because of this.
The tenant said she called the landlord around Christmas/New Year 2022/2023 about the hole in the laundry ceiling, where the builder’s apprentice had fallen through in December 2022. The landlord said they had no note of the tenant’s call but observed this hole in their July 2023 inspection of the property.
[The tenant/s] said she told the landlord of the leaks around the chimney that occurred after the new roof was installed in September 2022. She maintained water drips onto the fireplace when there is heavy rain now. She said she told the landlord’s housing manager within the month of it first happening and more so over the period of Cyclone Gabrielle, with increased rain. [The tenant/s] said she had told the previous housing manager, as the current housing manager, [The property manager/s] said she did not recall this issue being raised in the July 2023 inspection by the tenant.
In relation to a number of issues raised about the landlord’s failure to maintain the property, the landlord said they have endeavoured to keep up with repairs but the cost of doing so far exceeded rental income. The landlord also maintained the tradespeople who attended to some of these repairs did not tell them the extent of the problems, nor did they receive some notifications that the tenant said she had given their organisation of issues. The landlord said they have a new property manager, [The property manager/s], who inspected the property fully in July 2023 and told them there are significant repairs required to the property. Because of this, the landlord obtained a builder’s quote for the cost of repairs, which came to around $55,000.00. The landlord maintained that the repairs required are so significant that it is not practicable for the tenants to remain living in the property whilst they are carried out and so the landlord issued a notice to termination dated 8 August 2023, delivered to the tenants on 11 August 2023, requiring the tenants to vacate the property by 11 November 2023, which is dealt with below.
The landlord said the builder has quoted for work that involves pulling down all ceilings and walls in wet areas, kitchen, dining room and lounge, for electrical work, plumbing work to delete all wet areas and renew them where required.
Given the number of times that repairs, replacements and removal of items and issues have been requested by the tenants since at least 2017, many of which remain issues, such as the insinkerator that is still leaking, the laundry windows that are still not repaired or replaced, the loose spouting still, the leak in the hot water system, the leak around the chimney, the hole in the laundry ceiling, a damp and mouldy bathroom, and a leaking dining room ceiling, I find the landlord has failed to maintain the property and they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, 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.
The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. Here, damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I find in this situation that the landlord acted intentionally, in acting the way they did and allowing the situation to continue over a period of several years.
I have dealt with the landlord’s intent above. The effect of this unlawful act on the tenants is that the tenants have had to live with constant damp and mould, leaking ceilings and sub-standard housing conditions. [The tenant/s] said they have young children, that their son has been sick from the damp and that it has been an extremely stressful and frustrating situation for a long time for their family. It is certainly in the interests of the tenant and in the public interest, I find, to make it clear that this behaviour by a landlord is unacceptable.
Having regard to the above factors, I find that an award of one-half of the maximum is warranted. The period of several years over which the tenants repeatedly requested repairs of multiple issues, without success, and the ongoing multiple maintenance issues that remain, I find are aggravating factors which justify a higher award than one-third of the maximum. Therefore, I award the tenants $3,600.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain. Healthy Homes Standards – moisture and drainage
The tenant alleged that the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards in relation to moisture and drainage. However, the landlord is not a registered community housing provider and the tenancy has not been renewed or varied since the tenants moved in 18 June 2012. As such, the landlord is not obligated to comply with this Healthy Home Standard until 1 July 2025. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Retaliatory Notice
On 11 August 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice dated 8 August 2023 ending the tenancy on 11 November 2023. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord purported to give the tenant a 90-day notice pursuant to section 51(2)(f) RTA, saying that extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken and the work is to begin, or material steps, towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
[The tenant/s] believed that because she had repeatedly requested that the landlord repair multiple issues at the property, the landlord then decided to terminate her tenancy. The most recent date she asked for these repairs, she said, was at the property inspection in July 2023. She then received the notice to terminate on 11 August 2023.
The landlord denied the notice to terminate was retaliatory. They said it was only after the July 2023 property inspection that their new housing manager told them clearly that there were significant repairs required to the property. Due to this, they obtained a quote from a builder about what needed to be done and the cost and were told by the builder that significant repairs were required and that it would not be practicable for the tenants to live at the property during these repairs. The landlord provided a quote/report from their builder, which detailed having to pull down all ceilings and walls in wet areas, kitchen, dining room and lounge, that electrical work will be redone, that the electrician would only be leaving the builder a double circuit to work from and all other electrical points would be cut off, for safety purposes. The builder said further that the plumber will be deleting all wet areas and renewing them where required and that water into the property would be cut off until they complete pressure testing. The bathroom is to be stripped and redone and all fixtures replaced. The hallway wall needs to be repairs, as does the toilet floor. The kitchen, dining and lounge ceilings need to be replaced with gib and plastered and painted. As a result of the work required, the builder’s opinion was that the area should be vacated due to health and safety regulations. The landlord said the tenants and their young family could not live in such conditions during these repairs.
[The tenant/s] said they have lived at the property during other repairs, such as the roof replacement and they could remain at the property during these proposed repairs also. [The tenant/s] said that further proof of the landlord’s retaliatory notice is that the landlord will not commit to the tenants being able to move back into the property after the repairs are completed. The landlord said that internal repairs, such as these proposed by the builder, rather than external repairs such as the roof replacement did not practically allow anyone to live at the premises, especially with young children. The landlord said there would not be power, water or kitchen and bathroom facilities available during these repairs. The landlord said further that the repairs will be a significant cost, that these tenants have been paying very low rent, that there are many factors involved in what happens to the property after the repairs and they were not willing to have that conversation with the tenant about whether they can move back in after the repairs.
The property inspection reports from 2017 to 2022 show that the tenant has requested numerous repairs before the inspection in July 2023. I find the tenant has not established that the exercise of her right in requesting repairs in the July 2023 property inspection triggered the landlord’s notice to terminate, as it was essentially a repeat of earlier requests. Had the repair requests by the tenant been a factor for the landlord, they could have issued a termination notice much earlier but did not. Therefore, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove the issuing of the notice to terminate by the landlord was retaliatory and this claim is dismissed. Attempt to terminate without grounds
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has established grounds as to why they issued a notice to terminate, as they provided a builder’s quote and report as to the significant repairs required to the property and the builder’s opinion that the property had to be vacant when repaired. Given the enormous repairs being undertaken, and that most of them are internal repairs, I find it would be impracticable and potentially dangerous for the tenants and their young children to remain living at the property during these significant repairs. Therefore, I find the tenants have not established the landlord attempted to terminate the tenancy without grounds and this claim is dismissed.
Therefore, I find the notice to terminate the tenancy dated 8 August 2023 delivered to the tenants on 11 August 2023 is valid, thus the tenancy is terminated validly, and the tenants must vacate the property on 11 November 2023. Work order
Because the tenants must vacate the property on 11 November 2023 and the landlord is undertaking significant repair work after that, I do not need to make any findings in relation to the tenants’ claims for work orders. This claim is dismissed. Compensation
The tenants claimed $1,800.00 in compensation. They said this was for them having to pay an extra $50.00 per month on their power bills, at $600.00 per year, for the last 3 years since the bathroom was leaking. The tenants did not provide any power bills or comparisons of power bills of other similar properties to establish their power bills were excessive and due to the landlord’s actions. I find the tenants have provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] have been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
During the hearing, the landlord and one of the tenants requested suppression.
The tenant is entitled to name suppression as they have been successful with the claim. Because of the possibility of identifying this tenant through the name of the other tenant, I order that the names and identifying details of both tenants not be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord has a new housing manager who has thoroughly inspected their housing to report on repairs that need to be done. Despite my finding that the landlord failed to maintain the property, the landlord appeared committed to ensuring their housing is repaired to standard for their tenants more recently. As the landlord appeared to be making efforts in this regard recently, and because of the importance of available housing for tenants in the Wairoa region, I find that the landlord’s own interests in not having their name published currently outweighs the public interest in publishing their name. Were there to be any other similar claims brought to the Tribunal against this landlord, name suppression might not be considered on any subsequent occasions.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4667150 — Exemplary damages at 32 Churchill Avenue, Wairoa, Wairoa 4108

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4667150 — Exemplary damages at 32 Churchill Avenue, Wairoa, Wairoa 4108

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions