What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4692012 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4692012?

Compensation: $3,999.20 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692012?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9589472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4692012 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4692012?

Compensation: $3,999.20 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692012?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9589472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Tenancy address supressed] Tenancy Tribunal Case 4692012 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4692012 — net $5,419.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant Compensation (for 2 weeks accommodation after flooding form 20/07/23 to 1/08/23 as per attachment 10 of i	$3,999.20	LandlordTenant Compensation (for 2 weeks accommodation after flooding form 20/07/23 to 1/08/23 as per attachment 10 of i
Compensation (additional power costs for carpet drying as per attachment 11 of insurance claim	$200.00	Compensation (additional power costs for carpet drying as per attachment 11 of insurance claim
Exemplary damages (for failure to maintain, s45(1)(b	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages (for failure to maintain, s45(1)(b
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,419.64
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,419.64

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Emma Pro-Nz Limited As Agent Of Hack Jae Kim must pay the tenants $5,419.64 immediately as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for compensation and exemplary damages because of damage done to the tenants’ apartment, other apartments in the building and some retail shops in the lower level of the building that the landlord claims resulted from the tenants deliberate, intentional or careless actions. It also made a claim for reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of its name and identifying details of the premises.
The tenants made a counterclaim for reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation for the accommodation costs they incurred when they were forced to move into temporary accommodation after their apartment was flooded and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure the apartment was repaired after the flood to a liveable state. During the hearing the tenants also made an applicable for suppression of their names and identifying details. Background
The tenants had lived in the apartment building since July 2018 and, up to the 20 July 2023 incident, enjoyed a good relationship with the property manager and landlord and had very few issues with their tenancy.
On 20 July 2023, a sprinkler activated in the tenant’s apartment causing extensive flood related damage in the tenants’ apartment, some other apartments’ and in some shops within the lower levels of the building. This resulted in a dispute about what caused the sprinkler to activate and who is responsible for the costs associated with the damage caused to both parties’ property. Conflicting reports about the cause of the 20 July incident
Fire and Emergency Services (FENZ) were called to the 20 July 2023 incident and a Fire Fighter and Sprinkler Specialist from FENZ undertook a thorough examination of the sprinkler that had activated to ascertain the cause of the activation. The 14 August 2023 FENZ SMS Incident Report classifies the incident type as a false alarm caused by a defective apparatus K-46-3 and concludes it found “no reason for the activation” and it was “likely” the “sprinkler was defective”. The tenant confirmed he had been told that evening by the FENZ staff that conducted the investigation that they were certain the sprinkler had failed.
The Body Corporate for the building engages First Fire System Ltd (FFS) as its fire protection specialists. On 21 July 2023, FFS provided a 21 July 2023 report to the Body Corporate that states “In this case the Sprinkler inside the tenant’s room is rated to 68 degrees and a Fire Sprinkler will only activate when the heat in the room exceeds the sprinkler rating. I am baffled if the sprinkler has activated on its own due to the sprinkler being broken in half as per the photos this could only indicate the sprinkler had been hit. To gain a report from the Fire Brigade you would need to contact FENZ directly”.
Based on FFS’s report, the Body Corporate considers the tenants responsible for a damaged sprinkler that caused significant damage to the tenants’ apartment, some other apartments and some shops in the building and instructed the Property Manager to pursue claims for compensation and exemplary damages in the Tribunal.
The Property Manager confirmed to the Tribunal that she had taken the faulty sprinkler to a sprinkler specialist in Penrose. The specialist confirmed to her that FENZ was correct, the sprinkler was defective, and the tenant could not be held liable for the damage caused by the defective sprinkler.
The Property Manager also gave evidence she lives in the building, had been coming home at the same time as the tenant, had seen him going to his apartment, confirmed the tenant was not in the apartment at the time the sprinkler system activated and could not have been responsible for the incident.
The parties brought the defective sprinkler to the hearing. There was no evidence it had been tampered with or hit hard enough to have broken it in half. In addition, it was clear to me the sprinkler attached to FFS’s report was not of the same sprinkler. It was a picture of a completely different type of sprinkler. That cast additional doubt on the conclusion reached by FFS that the tenant had hit the heavy metal sprinkler causing it to break clean in half.
The tenant also confirmed that neither he, his wife or his children were in the apartment at the time the sprinkler system activated. He produced photographs taken of him at the time FENZ were carrying out its investigation. He was dry. He also confirmed neither he nor his family had ever had any contact with the sprinkler. The property manager and the tenant confirmed the sprinkler was at least 2.4 metres from the floor of the apartment and could not be easily reached by the tenant or accidentally knocked.
The tenant also stated that there had been a big fire in the building in April 2023 that resulted in a large explosion in the apartment below the one he and his family occupied and since the explosion he and his family had experienced a lot of issues with their apartment. He claimed he had reported 40 facility issues since April 2023, significantly more than prior to the explosion. He also stated the damage from the fire was so extensive that the basement carpark was still being under repair.
For all the reasons above, I have concluded that a defective sprinkler caused the flooding damage to the apartments and commercial premises in the lower level of the building and the tenant did not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the sprinkler that activated in his apartment on 20 July 2023.
Again, for the reasons outlined above, the landlord’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages has not been made out and are dismissed. Failure to maintain and repair
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 (1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45 (1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Breaching this obligation 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 tenant had to move out of the apartment for 2 weeks, but in that time the carpet and underlay had not had sufficient time to dry out, despite large commercial drying fans being used and commercial carpet cleaners unsuccessfully trying to clean the stained and aromatic water out of the carpet.
The tenant informed the landlord many times from 1 August 2023 that the carpet was still extremely wet and the underlay was growing fungus that was aggravating his son’s asthma and was causing health issues for the rest of the tenant’s family. The tenant asked for the underlay to be pulled up and disposed of immediately and the carpet and underlay to be replaced as soon as practicable. The landlord refused to do either until the insurance claim had been approved. Further, the landlord blamed the tenant for the sprinkler being activated and conveyed to the property manager he was not mined to repair the carpet so it would be habitable for the tenant and his family. The landlord was however happy to continue to receive full rent during the two weeks the tenant and his family were unable to live in the apartment and after they moved back into a damp, smelly and unliveable apartment.
After raising concerns about the carpet repeatedly, and getting nowhere, the tenant and his family were forced to move out on 2 September 2023 due to the impact on their health of their poor living conditions. I find the landlord has 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.
The landlord was aware that the carpet and underlay was causing the tenant and his son health issues, that the underlay was not dried out sufficiently for the apartment to be habitable, he gave no rent relief to the tenant during the two weeks the tenant could not return to his apartment and put the tenant to an additional cost of nearly $4,000.00 for temporary accommodation during that time. The landlord did not offer to compensate the tenant for the additional power cost he incurred because of the commercial drying fans and the carpet cleaning.
The tenant was also put to the cost of replacing furniture damaged in the flood and moving costs he would not have incurred but for the landlord refusing to address the health issues associated with the wet, stained carpet and wet fungal underlay.
I consider it just to require the landlord to pay a sum to the tenant in exemplary damages and have made an award of $1,200.00 exemplary damages accordingly. Reimbursement of costs incurred by the tenant
The tenant incurred costs of $3,999.20 for temporary accommodation for two weeks. This cost was reasonable given he had to find accommodation late at night and at short notice without knowing how long it would be before he and his family cold return to their apartment.
The landlord provided evidence of these costs to the tenant and the insurance claim it has made for these costs that it states it has incurred. The landlord did not reimburse the tenant, nor did it offer to reimburse the tenant for this cost. The landlord should not be permitted to be unjustly enriched from its insurance claim and is ordered to reimburse the tenants for the full accommodation cost incurred by them, while they continued to pay full rent.
The tenant also incurred $200.00 of additional power costs in their August 2023 power bill. This additional cost was proven by the provision of power bills prior to the 20 July 2023 incident. The landlord has also included this cost in its insurance claim. The landlord should not be permitted to be unjustly enriched from its insurance claim and is ordered to reimburse the tenants for the additional power used by the landlord when trying to dry out the flood damaged carpet and underlay in their apartment.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee and the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of its filing fee is denied.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4692012 — net $5,419.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant Compensation (for 2 weeks accommodation after flooding form 20/07/23 to 1/08/23 as per attachment 10 of i	$3,999.20	LandlordTenant Compensation (for 2 weeks accommodation after flooding form 20/07/23 to 1/08/23 as per attachment 10 of i
Compensation (additional power costs for carpet drying as per attachment 11 of insurance claim	$200.00	Compensation (additional power costs for carpet drying as per attachment 11 of insurance claim
Exemplary damages (for failure to maintain, s45(1)(b	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages (for failure to maintain, s45(1)(b
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,419.64
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,419.64

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Emma Pro-Nz Limited As Agent Of Hack Jae Kim must pay the tenants $5,419.64 immediately as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for compensation and exemplary damages because of damage done to the tenants’ apartment, other apartments in the building and some retail shops in the lower level of the building that the landlord claims resulted from the tenants deliberate, intentional or careless actions. It also made a claim for reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of its name and identifying details of the premises.
The tenants made a counterclaim for reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation for the accommodation costs they incurred when they were forced to move into temporary accommodation after their apartment was flooded and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure the apartment was repaired after the flood to a liveable state. During the hearing the tenants also made an applicable for suppression of their names and identifying details. Background
The tenants had lived in the apartment building since July 2018 and, up to the 20 July 2023 incident, enjoyed a good relationship with the property manager and landlord and had very few issues with their tenancy.
On 20 July 2023, a sprinkler activated in the tenant’s apartment causing extensive flood related damage in the tenants’ apartment, some other apartments’ and in some shops within the lower levels of the building. This resulted in a dispute about what caused the sprinkler to activate and who is responsible for the costs associated with the damage caused to both parties’ property. Conflicting reports about the cause of the 20 July incident
Fire and Emergency Services (FENZ) were called to the 20 July 2023 incident and a Fire Fighter and Sprinkler Specialist from FENZ undertook a thorough examination of the sprinkler that had activated to ascertain the cause of the activation. The 14 August 2023 FENZ SMS Incident Report classifies the incident type as a false alarm caused by a defective apparatus K-46-3 and concludes it found “no reason for the activation” and it was “likely” the “sprinkler was defective”. The tenant confirmed he had been told that evening by the FENZ staff that conducted the investigation that they were certain the sprinkler had failed.
The Body Corporate for the building engages First Fire System Ltd (FFS) as its fire protection specialists. On 21 July 2023, FFS provided a 21 July 2023 report to the Body Corporate that states “In this case the Sprinkler inside the tenant’s room is rated to 68 degrees and a Fire Sprinkler will only activate when the heat in the room exceeds the sprinkler rating. I am baffled if the sprinkler has activated on its own due to the sprinkler being broken in half as per the photos this could only indicate the sprinkler had been hit. To gain a report from the Fire Brigade you would need to contact FENZ directly”.
Based on FFS’s report, the Body Corporate considers the tenants responsible for a damaged sprinkler that caused significant damage to the tenants’ apartment, some other apartments and some shops in the building and instructed the Property Manager to pursue claims for compensation and exemplary damages in the Tribunal.
The Property Manager confirmed to the Tribunal that she had taken the faulty sprinkler to a sprinkler specialist in Penrose. The specialist confirmed to her that FENZ was correct, the sprinkler was defective, and the tenant could not be held liable for the damage caused by the defective sprinkler.
The Property Manager also gave evidence she lives in the building, had been coming home at the same time as the tenant, had seen him going to his apartment, confirmed the tenant was not in the apartment at the time the sprinkler system activated and could not have been responsible for the incident.
The parties brought the defective sprinkler to the hearing. There was no evidence it had been tampered with or hit hard enough to have broken it in half. In addition, it was clear to me the sprinkler attached to FFS’s report was not of the same sprinkler. It was a picture of a completely different type of sprinkler. That cast additional doubt on the conclusion reached by FFS that the tenant had hit the heavy metal sprinkler causing it to break clean in half.
The tenant also confirmed that neither he, his wife or his children were in the apartment at the time the sprinkler system activated. He produced photographs taken of him at the time FENZ were carrying out its investigation. He was dry. He also confirmed neither he nor his family had ever had any contact with the sprinkler. The property manager and the tenant confirmed the sprinkler was at least 2.4 metres from the floor of the apartment and could not be easily reached by the tenant or accidentally knocked.
The tenant also stated that there had been a big fire in the building in April 2023 that resulted in a large explosion in the apartment below the one he and his family occupied and since the explosion he and his family had experienced a lot of issues with their apartment. He claimed he had reported 40 facility issues since April 2023, significantly more than prior to the explosion. He also stated the damage from the fire was so extensive that the basement carpark was still being under repair.
For all the reasons above, I have concluded that a defective sprinkler caused the flooding damage to the apartments and commercial premises in the lower level of the building and the tenant did not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the sprinkler that activated in his apartment on 20 July 2023.
Again, for the reasons outlined above, the landlord’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages has not been made out and are dismissed. Failure to maintain and repair
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 (1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45 (1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Breaching this obligation 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 tenant had to move out of the apartment for 2 weeks, but in that time the carpet and underlay had not had sufficient time to dry out, despite large commercial drying fans being used and commercial carpet cleaners unsuccessfully trying to clean the stained and aromatic water out of the carpet.
The tenant informed the landlord many times from 1 August 2023 that the carpet was still extremely wet and the underlay was growing fungus that was aggravating his son’s asthma and was causing health issues for the rest of the tenant’s family. The tenant asked for the underlay to be pulled up and disposed of immediately and the carpet and underlay to be replaced as soon as practicable. The landlord refused to do either until the insurance claim had been approved. Further, the landlord blamed the tenant for the sprinkler being activated and conveyed to the property manager he was not mined to repair the carpet so it would be habitable for the tenant and his family. The landlord was however happy to continue to receive full rent during the two weeks the tenant and his family were unable to live in the apartment and after they moved back into a damp, smelly and unliveable apartment.
After raising concerns about the carpet repeatedly, and getting nowhere, the tenant and his family were forced to move out on 2 September 2023 due to the impact on their health of their poor living conditions. I find the landlord has 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.
The landlord was aware that the carpet and underlay was causing the tenant and his son health issues, that the underlay was not dried out sufficiently for the apartment to be habitable, he gave no rent relief to the tenant during the two weeks the tenant could not return to his apartment and put the tenant to an additional cost of nearly $4,000.00 for temporary accommodation during that time. The landlord did not offer to compensate the tenant for the additional power cost he incurred because of the commercial drying fans and the carpet cleaning.
The tenant was also put to the cost of replacing furniture damaged in the flood and moving costs he would not have incurred but for the landlord refusing to address the health issues associated with the wet, stained carpet and wet fungal underlay.
I consider it just to require the landlord to pay a sum to the tenant in exemplary damages and have made an award of $1,200.00 exemplary damages accordingly. Reimbursement of costs incurred by the tenant
The tenant incurred costs of $3,999.20 for temporary accommodation for two weeks. This cost was reasonable given he had to find accommodation late at night and at short notice without knowing how long it would be before he and his family cold return to their apartment.
The landlord provided evidence of these costs to the tenant and the insurance claim it has made for these costs that it states it has incurred. The landlord did not reimburse the tenant, nor did it offer to reimburse the tenant for this cost. The landlord should not be permitted to be unjustly enriched from its insurance claim and is ordered to reimburse the tenants for the full accommodation cost incurred by them, while they continued to pay full rent.
The tenant also incurred $200.00 of additional power costs in their August 2023 power bill. This additional cost was proven by the provision of power bills prior to the 20 July 2023 incident. The landlord has also included this cost in its insurance claim. The landlord should not be permitted to be unjustly enriched from its insurance claim and is ordered to reimburse the tenants for the additional power used by the landlord when trying to dry out the flood damaged carpet and underlay in their apartment.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee and the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of its filing fee is denied.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692012 — State of repair at [Tenancy address supressed]

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692012 — State of repair at [Tenancy address supressed]

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