What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685592 about?

The tribunal order states: A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Tim Treleaven must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4685592?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,440.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685592?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9554577-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685592 about?

The tribunal order states: A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Tim Treleaven must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4685592?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,440.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685592?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9554577-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 104 Mandeville Street, Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4685592 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4685592 — net $3,960.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity	$1,440.00	loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,960.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,960.44

Order

A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Tim Treleaven must pay [The tenant/s] $3,960.44 immediately, made up as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation: loss of amenity$1,440.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain$2,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,960.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 22 February 2022 and relates to a 5-bedroom property in Riccarton. The tenancy is managed by A1 Property Managers Limited (“A1”) and is owned by Mr Treleaven (“the owner”) who resides in Australia. At all times A1 was acting as agent for the owner pursuant to a property management agreement.
In May 2023, the heat-pump installed in the premises stopped working. The tenants reported this to A1 on 12 May 2023. On 16 May 2023, a tradesperson engaged by A1 attended the premises to assess the heat-pump. The report indicated that the heat-pump had de-gassed and needed to be repaired or replaced. Quotes were provided for that.
A1 forwarded the quotes and report to the owner. The owner did not accept the quotes and told A1 that he would arrange the repairs directly, via his own tradespeople.
A1 advised the tenants of this, and there was regular communication in the following months about the repairs.
In August 2023, the tenants sent a 14-day notice to A1. That was also forwarded to the owner, but there was no response.
The heat-pump was finally repaired on 19 September 2023, following the tenants’ application being lodged with the Tribunal.
[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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
On the basis of this breach, the tenants seek compensation for loss of amenity and exemplary damages for the owner’s failure to maintain the property.
The tenants were without proper heating for 19 weeks, over the coldest part of the winter. This has a significant impact on them. Several of the tenants spent a lot of time away from the premises due to the cold. Further the tenants had increases in heating costs trying to heat the premises with alternate heaters.
It is important to note that heating requirements form part of the Healthy Homes Standards, which is a legislative endorsement of the importance of heating for tenant wellbeing.
The tenants have suffered a loss of amenity for the period they have been without proper heating. They seek the additional power costs caused, but there are difficulties in assessing the exactly cost of this. I have assessed a nominal figure for loss of amenity for the 19-week period the house was without heating and award $1440.00, which equates to two-weeks rent.
Further, breaching any of the s45 obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
A1 has provided good communication and assistance to the tenants. However, as an agent, they must follow the directions of the owner. The owner has failed, for a significant period, to fulfil his obligation to maintain the premises. I find the owner has committed an unlawful act.
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.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenants have been subjected to living in a very cold house for a significant period. The owner was aware that there was a problem with the heat-pump in May 2023. He had the cause of the issue diagnosed for him, and the options for remedy outlined. He was aware of the need to act and failed to do so.
I note that the A1 represented the owner’s interests at the hearing and expressed some concern that he was not present to provide reasons for the delay in repairing the heat-pump. They were right to do so, however I consider the owner has had sufficient notice of the application and time to respond to it. Any explanation the owner wished to give could have been provided, in writing, to A1 to present at the hearing.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair this damage. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is significant, and in the absence of any explanation, the clear inference is that it was an intentional failure to act.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and I award $2,500.00.
I note that had A1 not maintained communication with the tenants and continued to act is a professional and empathetic manner, the award of exemplary damages would likely have been higher.
Because [The tenant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4685592 — net $3,960.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity	$1,440.00	loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,960.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,960.44

Order

A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Tim Treleaven must pay [The tenant/s] $3,960.44 immediately, made up as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation: loss of amenity$1,440.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain$2,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,960.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 22 February 2022 and relates to a 5-bedroom property in Riccarton. The tenancy is managed by A1 Property Managers Limited (“A1”) and is owned by Mr Treleaven (“the owner”) who resides in Australia. At all times A1 was acting as agent for the owner pursuant to a property management agreement.
In May 2023, the heat-pump installed in the premises stopped working. The tenants reported this to A1 on 12 May 2023. On 16 May 2023, a tradesperson engaged by A1 attended the premises to assess the heat-pump. The report indicated that the heat-pump had de-gassed and needed to be repaired or replaced. Quotes were provided for that.
A1 forwarded the quotes and report to the owner. The owner did not accept the quotes and told A1 that he would arrange the repairs directly, via his own tradespeople.
A1 advised the tenants of this, and there was regular communication in the following months about the repairs.
In August 2023, the tenants sent a 14-day notice to A1. That was also forwarded to the owner, but there was no response.
The heat-pump was finally repaired on 19 September 2023, following the tenants’ application being lodged with the Tribunal.
[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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
On the basis of this breach, the tenants seek compensation for loss of amenity and exemplary damages for the owner’s failure to maintain the property.
The tenants were without proper heating for 19 weeks, over the coldest part of the winter. This has a significant impact on them. Several of the tenants spent a lot of time away from the premises due to the cold. Further the tenants had increases in heating costs trying to heat the premises with alternate heaters.
It is important to note that heating requirements form part of the Healthy Homes Standards, which is a legislative endorsement of the importance of heating for tenant wellbeing.
The tenants have suffered a loss of amenity for the period they have been without proper heating. They seek the additional power costs caused, but there are difficulties in assessing the exactly cost of this. I have assessed a nominal figure for loss of amenity for the 19-week period the house was without heating and award $1440.00, which equates to two-weeks rent.
Further, breaching any of the s45 obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
A1 has provided good communication and assistance to the tenants. However, as an agent, they must follow the directions of the owner. The owner has failed, for a significant period, to fulfil his obligation to maintain the premises. I find the owner has committed an unlawful act.
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.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenants have been subjected to living in a very cold house for a significant period. The owner was aware that there was a problem with the heat-pump in May 2023. He had the cause of the issue diagnosed for him, and the options for remedy outlined. He was aware of the need to act and failed to do so.
I note that the A1 represented the owner’s interests at the hearing and expressed some concern that he was not present to provide reasons for the delay in repairing the heat-pump. They were right to do so, however I consider the owner has had sufficient notice of the application and time to respond to it. Any explanation the owner wished to give could have been provided, in writing, to A1 to present at the hearing.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair this damage. The duration of the landlord’s failure to act is significant, and in the absence of any explanation, the clear inference is that it was an intentional failure to act.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and I award $2,500.00.
I note that had A1 not maintained communication with the tenants and continued to act is a professional and empathetic manner, the award of exemplary damages would likely have been higher.
Because [The tenant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685592 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 2, 104 Mandeville Street, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685592 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 2, 104 Mandeville Street, Riccarton, Christchurch

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