What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680234 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 4680234?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680234?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9545753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680234 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 4680234?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680234?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9545753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4680234 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680234 — net $1,635.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement for window repair	$115.00	Reimbursement for window repair
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,635.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,635.44

Both tenants attended the hearing. Mr Li attended for the landlords. An interpreter translated for Mr Li.

This tenancy began on 19 January 2022 and ended on 4 October 2023.

The tenants raised various maintenance issues with the landlord during the tenancy. The tenants were not satisfied with the way the landlord dealt with them and they claim compensation and exemplary damages for the landlords’ failure to comply with their maintenance and Healthy Homes obligations. The tenants also make claims for interference with their quiet enjoyment and failure by the landlords to comply with their obligations relating to the bond. Law

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the landlord must a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. b. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. c. 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 (s45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the 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. (s109(3) of the Act).

The premises were required to comply with the current Healthy Homes regulations within 90 days of the start of the tenancy being on 19 April 2022. Claims Insulation

There was no evidence that the premises did not comply with insulation requirements. Both sides produced Healthy Homes reports which confirmed that the premises complied with the insulation requirements. They both refer to a required R value of R2.4 whereas the Healthy Homes standard is R3.3. But there was no evidence that the insulation did not comply with that standard, and it is likely that it did. Window Damage

Window glass broke during the tenancy and the tenants immediately reported it to the landlords. They explained that they opened the window by pushing against the glass and it shattered. The landlords maintained that it was the tenants’ responsibility to replace the glass which they did at a cost of $115. They claim reimbursement of that sum on the basis that they did not carelessly cause the window to break.

They said that the glazier told them that the glass and the surrounding rubber strips has degraded causing the glass to be easily breakable. There was no direct evidence from the glazier. Near the end of the tenancy the tenants found another window broken. It was in a room they hardly used and was behind a sofa.

I found the tenants to be honest and reliable witnesses. They were responsible tenants who kept up good communication with the landlords and adhered to their responsibilities generally. The landlord pointed that they had overstated the cost of the window repairs, but I accept that was not intentional and that they always intended to produce the invoice.

I also accept that as windows and glass ages it becomes more fragile. This was single glazed aluminium windows likely installed when the house was built in 1960.

I accept the tenants’ evidence and find that they were not careless when they opened the window. I note that the tenants asked the landlord to get a glazier to check the windows, but he did not do so. The tenants claim that was a breach of the landlord’s obligations. It follows that the landlord must reimburse the tenants for the cost of replacing the glass.

I also accept that after the tenants informed the landlords about their concerns regarding the fragility of the glass, he should have had an expert inspect the glass to advise on its safety. That could probably have been done without cost to the landlord. That was therefore a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations. Draughts

The Healthy Homes reports did not find any unreasonable gaps in the premises and so the tenants withdrew this claim. Hot Water

The tenants complained in early 2023 to the landlord that the water coming from the hot water tap in the bathroom was too hot. They were concerned about the risk that their five-year-old daughter would be scalded by the water. The landlord took no action. I accept that they tested the water temperature from the tap, and it was 64°C which is significantly too hot.

The tenants adjusted the thermostat on the hot water cylinder, but it made no difference. They considered adjusting it further, but they were concerned that it could make things worse. As well, there was no mark on the dial to show what temperature the dial was turned to.

The tenants adapted to the situation by ensuring that their daughter used only the cold tap and took care themselves.

I regard this as a breach by the landlords of their maintenance obligations. This was a serious and genuine concern raised by the tenants and the landlords should have had it properly investigated. Quiet Enjoyment

The landlord came on two occasions to carry out repairs including to taps in the bathroom. The tenants says that he took too long over them, and he did not appear to have the skills needed to carry out the necessary work competently. I accept that. The landlord should have employed a plumber to do the work and the bath tap did not get fixed.

I do not think that this should be regarded as an interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises. Rather it is an instance of the landlords failing fully to meet their maintenance obligations. Bond

The landlord failed to lodge the bond paid by the tenants. He said that he believed he had two months in which to lodge the bond, not the 23 working days allowed by the Act. He said that he was a first-time landlord.

The landlord could easily have checked the requirement for lodging the bond. All the information is on the Tenancy Services website. That said, I accept that the failure arose due to a lack of knowledge and experience, and it was not intentional. Therefore, an award of exemplary damages is not warranted. Mould

The tenants complained about persistent mould in the premises. They said that the landlord should have investigated the situation and, if he had done so, he would have found that guttering was defective as identified in the tenants’ Healthy Homes report. They blamed the guttering and water spilling from it for causing dampness and mould. The landlord put it down to a failure to properly ventilate the premises.

There is something in the tenants’ complaint. The landlord has demonstrated a reluctance to investigate issues that the tenants raised with him. But in the absence of a specific complaint about a defect, it is difficult to say that the landlord was required to investigate all possible causes of mould. The tenants could have investigated the issue further themselves. As well, there was no evidence that water from the guttering was causing damp and mould inside the premises.

Therefore, I find that this claim has not been proved. Summary and Conclusion

I have found that the landlords were in breach in relation to the hot water, glass and tap issues. They should have employed expert contractors to deal with them. The hot water and glass issues particularly caused the tenants stress and inconvenience over a significant time.

The landlord made a conscious decision not to get these issues investigated and dealt with. Given the importance to the tenants and to the public of landlords complying with their maintenance obligations, it is appropriate to award exemplary damages. Considering the effect these breaches had on the tenants and their enjoyment of the premises, an award of $1,500 is appropriate. Filing Fee

The tenants have had some success and so I have awarded them the filing fee. Suppression

For the same reason I have granted them name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680234 — net $1,635.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement for window repair	$115.00	Reimbursement for window repair
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,635.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,635.44