How much money was awarded in case 4694592?

Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; S Claimed Losses: $1,440.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694592?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10091899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4694592?

Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; S Claimed Losses: $1,440.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694592?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10091899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Linklater Avenue, Bellevue, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4694592 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4694592 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4694592. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
s Claimed Losses	$1,440.56	s Claimed Losses
Exemplary Damages (s 45	$7,200.00	Exemplary Damages (s 45
Application Filing Fee	$20.44	Application Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenants] name and identifying details. must pay immediately. DescriptionLandlord Tenant’s Claimed Losses$1,440.56 Exemplary Damages (s 45)$7,200.00 Application Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$8,661.00 Bond Services to release the bond of $2,160.00 to the immediately.

Reasons

The Tenants attended the hearing. The Landlord did not come to the hearing.
The Landlord has written to the registry to confirm it agrees to pay the Tenants $1,440.56 they have claimed. I award that amount by consent. The award pertains to the following, as per the Tenants’ application: Denied full use of premises, used sleeping bags since 20 September. Notified landlord of issues on 22 September via email. Incurred extra petrol costs, avoided property due to pest bites, stayed elsewhere, notified on 23 September via text. Ordered carpet cleaning for powder and fleas after denials. Purchased creams for bite treatment and bug bombs. Hot washed rug, which is now damaged, and discarded items like slippers and bathmats due to fleas.
The Tenant has also sought exemplary damages under s 45(1)(a) and s 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act. I considered those issues also. claims 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, and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, including, but not limited to, the healthy homes standards. Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA specifically requires landlords to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), specifically the moisture ingress and drainage standard. Compliance deadlines vary: private rentals by 1 July 2024, boarding houses by 1 July 2021, and Kāinga Ora and Community Housing Providers by 1 July 2023. 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. I have reviewed the Tenant’s evidence and considered their submissions. The Tribunal finds that the Landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, as evidenced by the sustained pest infestation problem, including fleas which caused severe bites, and cockroaches. Aspects of the home were not reasonably clean or tidy at the commencement of the tenancy. The Tenant has presented photographs of food scraps underneath and behind the refrigerator space. This will have contributed to the influx of cockroaches. The Tribunal notes the evidence of non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, including issues related to mould, ingress of water, and overall property maintenance. I accept there was, on balance, issues with drainage and water ingress which effected the garage, given the presence of mould. There may have also been an issue pertaining to inadequate draught-stopping, but it is unclear on the evidence which is the more probable cause of the mould-growth. The Landlord’s inaction and delayed response to the Tenants’ notifications have exacerbated the situation, significantly impacting upon the Tenants’ living conditions. I have insufficient evidence to confirm whether the crystalline powder provided to the Tenants to treat the pest infestation was hazardous to their health, although, I consider that the Landlord’s response to the Tenant’s complaints was woefully inadequate. The Tenants have incurred additional expenses and have suffered inconvenience due to the conditions of the property. These include costs for alternative accommodation, cleaning services, and medical treatment for pest-related issues. I do not have any evidence concerning the Tenants’ costs of alternative accommodation. I cannot award loss for personal injury. The Landlord did not fulfil their obligations to ensure the premises met the required health and safety standards. Given the Landlord’s neglect and the severity of the breach of their obligations, the Tribunal finds grounds for awarding exemplary damages. 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’s conduct, particularly the disregard for tenant health and safety, warrants such damages. What is more, the Landlord has not come to the hearing and has not communicated with the registry. Exemplary damages are punitive by design, and I consider the Landlord’s non-attendance at the hearing, without explanation, requires a punishment that is more severe because the Landlord’s response to the Tenants’ concerns have not only been so careless as to be intentional, but they have also been brazen in the sense they have not attempted to make amends and provide the Tenants with finality and closure. The effect on the Tenants was considerable. They had relocated from Christchurch and were both starting new employment and trying to find their feet and were living in an unhealthy home, losing sleep from being bitten and were very stressed. Consequently, I award $7,200.00 to the Tenants, the maximum penalty, although it is arguable that I could have awarded more, because more than one unlawful act have occurred in this case, including under. Nevertheless, I consider this is a case where a maximum penalty is appropriate. claims the landlord has harassed them. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. The Tenants say the Landlord dropped off the bag of crystalline powder, to treat the flea-ridden carpet, to their door, and without giving proper notice. The Landlord did text the Tenants to let them know they were coming. I am unable to find the Landlord has harassed the Tenants. Because has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and I also grant the Tenants request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4694592. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
s Claimed Losses	$1,440.56	s Claimed Losses
Exemplary Damages (s 45	$7,200.00	Exemplary Damages (s 45
Application Filing Fee	$20.44	Application Filing Fee

Order

Reasons

The Tenants attended the hearing. The Landlord did not come to the hearing.
The Landlord has written to the registry to confirm it agrees to pay the Tenants $1,440.56 they have claimed. I award that amount by consent. The award pertains to the following, as per the Tenants’ application: Denied full use of premises, used sleeping bags since 20 September. Notified landlord of issues on 22 September via email. Incurred extra petrol costs, avoided property due to pest bites, stayed elsewhere, notified on 23 September via text. Ordered carpet cleaning for powder and fleas after denials. Purchased creams for bite treatment and bug bombs. Hot washed rug, which is now damaged, and discarded items like slippers and bathmats due to fleas.
The Tenant has also sought exemplary damages under s 45(1)(a) and s 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act. I considered those issues also. claims 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, and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, including, but not limited to, the healthy homes standards. Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA specifically requires landlords to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), specifically the moisture ingress and drainage standard. Compliance deadlines vary: private rentals by 1 July 2024, boarding houses by 1 July 2021, and Kāinga Ora and Community Housing Providers by 1 July 2023. 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. I have reviewed the Tenant’s evidence and considered their submissions. The Tribunal finds that the Landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, as evidenced by the sustained pest infestation problem, including fleas which caused severe bites, and cockroaches. Aspects of the home were not reasonably clean or tidy at the commencement of the tenancy. The Tenant has presented photographs of food scraps underneath and behind the refrigerator space. This will have contributed to the influx of cockroaches. The Tribunal notes the evidence of non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, including issues related to mould, ingress of water, and overall property maintenance. I accept there was, on balance, issues with drainage and water ingress which effected the garage, given the presence of mould. There may have also been an issue pertaining to inadequate draught-stopping, but it is unclear on the evidence which is the more probable cause of the mould-growth. The Landlord’s inaction and delayed response to the Tenants’ notifications have exacerbated the situation, significantly impacting upon the Tenants’ living conditions. I have insufficient evidence to confirm whether the crystalline powder provided to the Tenants to treat the pest infestation was hazardous to their health, although, I consider that the Landlord’s response to the Tenant’s complaints was woefully inadequate. The Tenants have incurred additional expenses and have suffered inconvenience due to the conditions of the property. These include costs for alternative accommodation, cleaning services, and medical treatment for pest-related issues. I do not have any evidence concerning the Tenants’ costs of alternative accommodation. I cannot award loss for personal injury. The Landlord did not fulfil their obligations to ensure the premises met the required health and safety standards. Given the Landlord’s neglect and the severity of the breach of their obligations, the Tribunal finds grounds for awarding exemplary damages. 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’s conduct, particularly the disregard for tenant health and safety, warrants such damages. What is more, the Landlord has not come to the hearing and has not communicated with the registry. Exemplary damages are punitive by design, and I consider the Landlord’s non-attendance at the hearing, without explanation, requires a punishment that is more severe because the Landlord’s response to the Tenants’ concerns have not only been so careless as to be intentional, but they have also been brazen in the sense they have not attempted to make amends and provide the Tenants with finality and closure. The effect on the Tenants was considerable. They had relocated from Christchurch and were both starting new employment and trying to find their feet and were living in an unhealthy home, losing sleep from being bitten and were very stressed. Consequently, I award $7,200.00 to the Tenants, the maximum penalty, although it is arguable that I could have awarded more, because more than one unlawful act have occurred in this case, including under. Nevertheless, I consider this is a case where a maximum penalty is appropriate. claims the landlord has harassed them. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. The Tenants say the Landlord dropped off the bag of crystalline powder, to treat the flea-ridden carpet, to their door, and without giving proper notice. The Landlord did text the Tenants to let them know they were coming. I am unable to find the Landlord has harassed the Tenants. Because has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and I also grant the Tenants request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694592 — Exemplary damages at 13 Linklater Avenue, Bellevue, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694592 — Exemplary damages at 13 Linklater Avenue, Bellevue, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions