What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4684434 about?

The tribunal order states: Omni Property Management Limited As Agent For Jade York & Matt Braid

How much money was awarded in case 4684434?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684434?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9927923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4684434 about?

The tribunal order states: Omni Property Management Limited As Agent For Jade York & Matt Braid

How much money was awarded in case 4684434?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684434?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9927923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 28A Rutherford Terrace, Meadowbank, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4684434 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4684434 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain	$2,000.00	failure to maintain
Compensation: loss of amenity	$1,000.00	loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Order

Omni Property Management Limited As Agent For Jade York & Matt Braid Connor Blake must pay [The tenant/s] $3,020.44 immediately, made up as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation: failure to maintain$2,000.00 Compensation: loss of amenity$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants seek compensation and/or exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and the loss of amenity they suffered as a result. Background
The tenancy commenced on 11 August 2022 and was due to terminate in October 2023. The parties agreed to end the tenancy early, and possession was returned to the landlord on 27 August 2023.
The property owners reside in the UK, and the property was managed by Mr Connor Blake and his colleagues throughout the tenancy.
Not long after moving in, the tenants noticed issues with mould and a damp patch on the living room ceiling, together with overflowing gutters. This became more severe following Cyclone Gabrielle and the flooding that hit Auckland in January and February 2023.
The landlord was notified of the issue on 14 February 2023. The owners were notified on 16 February 2023.
Mr Blake remained in contact with the tenants and the owners of the property during the following months. It is important to note, that as property manager and agent for the owners, Mr Blake required the owners’ permission to undertake work, or incur costs on their behalf. Also, Mr Blake was not able to liaise with insurers on the owners’ behalf until permission was given for this in mid-2023.
Progress was further hindered by communication difficulties arising from the time delay between NZ and the UK, and the pressures on tradespeople and insurance companies following Cyclone Gabrielle.
However, having seen the communication from the owners throughout this period, I have formed the view that they underestimated the impact of the leak and the urgency of the repairs. This is evident from the full month between being advised of the issue and the need to contact insurers and the next contact from the owners on 23 March 2023.
It was clear, from the amount of damage to the ceiling in the lounge that there was a leak in the roof. It has since been determined that roof tiles were cracked in the cyclone and that was the cause of the water ingress.
The issue got progressively worse. The tenants were required to regularly clean mould off the walls in the bedroom and bathroom and were concerned about the damp in the living room.
Mr Blake inspected the extent of the damage himself and took steps to arrange trades people to assess the cause of the issue and the necessary repairs.
Again, while acknowledging the delays in insurance and contractors post- cyclone, I consider the owners still did not appreciate the urgency of the situation.
On 3 May 2023, Mr Blake wrote a clear email to the owners setting out the seriousness of the situation, the contribution of the cyclone, but also the need to ensure that the gutters were cleared to prevent ongoing issues. This was a reiteration of advice given at the start of the tenancy. This email set out the clear expectations for action to the owners, together with the importance of prompt action. The landlord’s response was not particularly helpful, particularly in terms of placing an obligation on the tenants for things – such as pruning trees – which are landlord maintenance obligations.
The roof was inspected by [Roofing Company] on 6 June 2023. Sealant was applied to the cracked tiles and skylight. However, that contractor was not prepared to provide a report or any more long-term solutions.
On 21 June 2023 the owners authorised Mr Blake to undertake the initial assessments required by the insurance company, and for the first time acknowledged that “urgent repairs” were required.
On 5 July 2023 a “mould scope” was done and an estimate provided to remove the mould.
On 15 August 2023 there was a further assessment undertaken and on 14 September 2023 (after the termination of the tenancy) a second roofing contractor undertook the repairs to the premises.
The water damage report confirmed the cause of the water ingress and confirmed: a. Water damage to the ceiling in the lounge. b. Elevate moisture readings in ceiling tiles and ceiling joists. c. Musty smells and signs of mould growth in the ceiling cavity. d. Mould growth inside the sunroof cavity and on the sunroof in the toilet. e. Mould growth on ceilings and curtains in the bedrooms. This was assessed as “likely due to the elevated moisture readings throughout the house.” Exemplary damages generally
The RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order those exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal is able to consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award. Failure to maintain.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
Having carefully considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain this premises in a timely manner. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
As discussed in the hearing, however, I am reluctant to award exemplary damages in the circumstances. Such an award carries a level of stigma which is not appropriate in this case, given the delays caused, in part, by pressures on contractors and insurers following Cyclone Gabrielle.
However, I am satisfied that the owners of the property failed to take action with sufficient urgency, whether this was deliberate or simply because they failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. This is a breach of the Act, and I am satisfied the tenants should be compensated for it.
Taking into account the duration of the delay and the fact that it resulted in the tenants living in a leaky, mouldy home for more than 6 months, with no clear end in sight, I award compensation of $2,000.00 pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act.
For completeness, I consider that Mr Blake has done an excellent job managing the owners’ interests and balancing this with obligations to the tenants. His communication with both parties has been professional, timely and appropriately appraised both parties of the situation, as best he could. Mr Blake’s communication with the tenants went a significant way to mitigating their anxiety and concerns around the lack of progress. I wish to make it clear that absent his excellent work, it is likely the delays would have been greater, the effects on the tenants worse, and the level of compensation significantly higher. Loss of amenity
Throughout the period this property was leaking and damp, the tenants continued to pay full rent.
They are seeking an abatement of rent for loss of amenity due to having reduced use of a bedroom, bathroom and the lounge, together with the requirement for increased cleaning to stay on top of the mould issue caused by the leak.
The duration of the reduced amenity is 6 months. I consider a rent abatement in the vicinity of $50 per week would be appropriate. Over the 27 weeks between 14 February 2023 and the end of the tenancy that amounts to $1,350.00. However, I have reduced the award slightly given there is some overlap with the award for failure to maintain the property.
Accordingly, I award $1,000.00 pursuant to s77(2)(n) of the Act. Filing Fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4684434 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain	$2,000.00	failure to maintain
Compensation: loss of amenity	$1,000.00	loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Order

Omni Property Management Limited As Agent For Jade York & Matt Braid Connor Blake must pay [The tenant/s] $3,020.44 immediately, made up as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation: failure to maintain$2,000.00 Compensation: loss of amenity$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants seek compensation and/or exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and the loss of amenity they suffered as a result. Background
The tenancy commenced on 11 August 2022 and was due to terminate in October 2023. The parties agreed to end the tenancy early, and possession was returned to the landlord on 27 August 2023.
The property owners reside in the UK, and the property was managed by Mr Connor Blake and his colleagues throughout the tenancy.
Not long after moving in, the tenants noticed issues with mould and a damp patch on the living room ceiling, together with overflowing gutters. This became more severe following Cyclone Gabrielle and the flooding that hit Auckland in January and February 2023.
The landlord was notified of the issue on 14 February 2023. The owners were notified on 16 February 2023.
Mr Blake remained in contact with the tenants and the owners of the property during the following months. It is important to note, that as property manager and agent for the owners, Mr Blake required the owners’ permission to undertake work, or incur costs on their behalf. Also, Mr Blake was not able to liaise with insurers on the owners’ behalf until permission was given for this in mid-2023.
Progress was further hindered by communication difficulties arising from the time delay between NZ and the UK, and the pressures on tradespeople and insurance companies following Cyclone Gabrielle.
However, having seen the communication from the owners throughout this period, I have formed the view that they underestimated the impact of the leak and the urgency of the repairs. This is evident from the full month between being advised of the issue and the need to contact insurers and the next contact from the owners on 23 March 2023.
It was clear, from the amount of damage to the ceiling in the lounge that there was a leak in the roof. It has since been determined that roof tiles were cracked in the cyclone and that was the cause of the water ingress.
The issue got progressively worse. The tenants were required to regularly clean mould off the walls in the bedroom and bathroom and were concerned about the damp in the living room.
Mr Blake inspected the extent of the damage himself and took steps to arrange trades people to assess the cause of the issue and the necessary repairs.
Again, while acknowledging the delays in insurance and contractors post- cyclone, I consider the owners still did not appreciate the urgency of the situation.
On 3 May 2023, Mr Blake wrote a clear email to the owners setting out the seriousness of the situation, the contribution of the cyclone, but also the need to ensure that the gutters were cleared to prevent ongoing issues. This was a reiteration of advice given at the start of the tenancy. This email set out the clear expectations for action to the owners, together with the importance of prompt action. The landlord’s response was not particularly helpful, particularly in terms of placing an obligation on the tenants for things – such as pruning trees – which are landlord maintenance obligations.
The roof was inspected by [Roofing Company] on 6 June 2023. Sealant was applied to the cracked tiles and skylight. However, that contractor was not prepared to provide a report or any more long-term solutions.
On 21 June 2023 the owners authorised Mr Blake to undertake the initial assessments required by the insurance company, and for the first time acknowledged that “urgent repairs” were required.
On 5 July 2023 a “mould scope” was done and an estimate provided to remove the mould.
On 15 August 2023 there was a further assessment undertaken and on 14 September 2023 (after the termination of the tenancy) a second roofing contractor undertook the repairs to the premises.
The water damage report confirmed the cause of the water ingress and confirmed: a. Water damage to the ceiling in the lounge. b. Elevate moisture readings in ceiling tiles and ceiling joists. c. Musty smells and signs of mould growth in the ceiling cavity. d. Mould growth inside the sunroof cavity and on the sunroof in the toilet. e. Mould growth on ceilings and curtains in the bedrooms. This was assessed as “likely due to the elevated moisture readings throughout the house.” Exemplary damages generally
The RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order those exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal is able to consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award. Failure to maintain.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
Having carefully considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain this premises in a timely manner. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
As discussed in the hearing, however, I am reluctant to award exemplary damages in the circumstances. Such an award carries a level of stigma which is not appropriate in this case, given the delays caused, in part, by pressures on contractors and insurers following Cyclone Gabrielle.
However, I am satisfied that the owners of the property failed to take action with sufficient urgency, whether this was deliberate or simply because they failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. This is a breach of the Act, and I am satisfied the tenants should be compensated for it.
Taking into account the duration of the delay and the fact that it resulted in the tenants living in a leaky, mouldy home for more than 6 months, with no clear end in sight, I award compensation of $2,000.00 pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act.
For completeness, I consider that Mr Blake has done an excellent job managing the owners’ interests and balancing this with obligations to the tenants. His communication with both parties has been professional, timely and appropriately appraised both parties of the situation, as best he could. Mr Blake’s communication with the tenants went a significant way to mitigating their anxiety and concerns around the lack of progress. I wish to make it clear that absent his excellent work, it is likely the delays would have been greater, the effects on the tenants worse, and the level of compensation significantly higher. Loss of amenity
Throughout the period this property was leaking and damp, the tenants continued to pay full rent.
They are seeking an abatement of rent for loss of amenity due to having reduced use of a bedroom, bathroom and the lounge, together with the requirement for increased cleaning to stay on top of the mould issue caused by the leak.
The duration of the reduced amenity is 6 months. I consider a rent abatement in the vicinity of $50 per week would be appropriate. Over the 27 weeks between 14 February 2023 and the end of the tenancy that amounts to $1,350.00. However, I have reduced the award slightly given there is some overlap with the award for failure to maintain the property.
Accordingly, I award $1,000.00 pursuant to s77(2)(n) of the Act. Filing Fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684434 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 1, 28A Rutherford Terrace, Meadowbank,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684434 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 1, 28A Rutherford Terrace, Meadowbank,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions