What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4696069 about?

The tribunal order states: Rwd Limited Shane Whittaker must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4696069?

Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4696069?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4696069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9683422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4696069 about?

The tribunal order states: Rwd Limited Shane Whittaker must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4696069?

Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4696069?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4696069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9683422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

154 No 8 Road, Springdale, RD 4, Springdale 3374 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4696069 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4696069 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Ventilation	$1,000.00	Ventilation
Exemplary damages: smoke alarms	$1,000.00	smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

Rwd Limited Shane Whittaker must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Ventilation$1,000.00 Exemplary damages: smoke alarms$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,020.44
The tenants’ claim in relation to insulation and failure to maintain are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the tenants attended the hearing, which was held by video link.
The tenancy was in place between 1 June 2022 and 9 October 2023, terminating when the tenant moved employer as this was a service tenancy.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for failure to insulate the premises, failure to maintain the premises and failure to comply with the ventilation and smoke alarms requirements of the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). Exemplary damages
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 can 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.
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 can 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. Smoke Alarms
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
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.
The tenant alleges that the landlord has failed to insulate the dwelling in accordance with the standards and has failed to provide smoke alarms.
From the material available to me, it would appear the landlord’s position is that the home was assessed for insulation on 6 September 2022 and was compliant. Further, that the tenants have removed the smoke alarms provided. This was communicated in the email from [The builder/s], a builder engaged by the landlord to assess and renovate the bathroom.
The tenants’ evidence is that there were never any smoke alarms at the premises, and that the insulation inspector told them there was no insulation in the roof or underfloor.
Of note, neither the tenants nor [The builder/s] have been into the ceiling or underfloor spaces themselves. Both report to me the comments of the insulation inspector. There is no direct material from that person.
I am mindful that the applicant must prove its case on the balance of probabilities. In the present case, there is simply not enough evidence for me to determine whether the dwelling is properly insulated. The tenant’s application in relation to insulation is dismissed.
In respect of the smoke alarms, there are photographs showing the brackets where the smoke alarms should be. The tenants’ evidence is that there were never smoke alarms mouthed on the brackets.
The landlord’s position is that the tenant removed the smoke alarms. There are no pre-tenancy photographs of the smoke alarms (although there are several other pre-tenancy photographs), nor is there a pre-tenancy inspection report. At best, the landlord’s position is a suggestion, there is no clear evidence of the installation of smoke alarms at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants, on the other hand, were clear in their evidence that there were never smoke alarms installed.
On balance I accept the evidence of the tenants in this regard.
Accordingly, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows: a. The actions of the landlord were either intentional or wilful blindness. This is clear from the absence of evidence of the presence of smoke alarms at the commencement of the tenancy. b. The effect of this on the tenants was one of safety, and risk of significant harm of even death in the event of a fire. c. There is a clear public interest in the provision and maintenance of functioning smoke alarms. Parliament has made it intentions clear on this in the legislation, and in my view, the Tribunal cannot be seen to condone breaches of the law, particularly when it comes to safety.
In the circumstances, I consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate and I award $1000.00. Ventilation
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
At the time this tenancy commenced, on 1 June 2022, compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
Having seen the photographs and heard the evidence, I conclude that there are no ventilation fans in the bathroom or kitchen.
The tenants have provided photos of the kitchen and bathroom showing that they were absent. The tenants’ oral evidence is that there were no ventilation fans installed during the tenancy.
Further, [The builder/s] (that landlord’s builder) notes that there were no ventilation fans when he inspected the dwelling in June 2022. He visited the premises again in September to establish the scope of work for bathroom repair and made no notes about fans being installed.
There is no evidence from the landlord relating to the installation of ventilation fans.
Accordingly, I conclude the landlord has failed to meet its obligations in relation to ventilation fans. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows: a. The landlord’s actions must have been intentional. There is clearly some knowledge of the HHS as the landlord has had a heat pump installed and had this checked in September 2022. b. The effect on the tenants was to live in a house with increased moisture and a reduced ability to properly ventilate for health and mould purposes. c. Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in housing stock remaining, safe, health, warm and dry. This is reflected in the introduction of the HHS and was well advertised to landlords and the public.
Considering the duration that this property was non-compliant, I consider that an award of exemplary damages is justified, and I award $1000.00 Failure to maintain
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.
The tenants’ claim relates to the time taken to repair the bathroom and the fireplace, together with the compliance with HHS.
The tenants very responsibly accept that they have not lost any use of the premises during this time, and they have had both a functioning bathroom and the heat pump for use.
The tenants were rather frustrated by the delays and lack of communications, having been told the work would be done.
On balance, I do not consider that there have been significant failures by the landlord to maintain the property. The bathroom was functional and there was a heat pump installed. The work was improvements rather than necessary repairs and maintenance. Further, I am mindful of the orders made in relation to non- compliance with HHS in their own right.
Accordingly, this aspect of the tenants’ claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4696069 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Ventilation	$1,000.00	Ventilation
Exemplary damages: smoke alarms	$1,000.00	smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

Rwd Limited Shane Whittaker must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Ventilation$1,000.00 Exemplary damages: smoke alarms$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,020.44
The tenants’ claim in relation to insulation and failure to maintain are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the tenants attended the hearing, which was held by video link.
The tenancy was in place between 1 June 2022 and 9 October 2023, terminating when the tenant moved employer as this was a service tenancy.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for failure to insulate the premises, failure to maintain the premises and failure to comply with the ventilation and smoke alarms requirements of the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). Exemplary damages
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 can 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.
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 can 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. Smoke Alarms
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
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.
The tenant alleges that the landlord has failed to insulate the dwelling in accordance with the standards and has failed to provide smoke alarms.
From the material available to me, it would appear the landlord’s position is that the home was assessed for insulation on 6 September 2022 and was compliant. Further, that the tenants have removed the smoke alarms provided. This was communicated in the email from [The builder/s], a builder engaged by the landlord to assess and renovate the bathroom.
The tenants’ evidence is that there were never any smoke alarms at the premises, and that the insulation inspector told them there was no insulation in the roof or underfloor.
Of note, neither the tenants nor [The builder/s] have been into the ceiling or underfloor spaces themselves. Both report to me the comments of the insulation inspector. There is no direct material from that person.
I am mindful that the applicant must prove its case on the balance of probabilities. In the present case, there is simply not enough evidence for me to determine whether the dwelling is properly insulated. The tenant’s application in relation to insulation is dismissed.
In respect of the smoke alarms, there are photographs showing the brackets where the smoke alarms should be. The tenants’ evidence is that there were never smoke alarms mouthed on the brackets.
The landlord’s position is that the tenant removed the smoke alarms. There are no pre-tenancy photographs of the smoke alarms (although there are several other pre-tenancy photographs), nor is there a pre-tenancy inspection report. At best, the landlord’s position is a suggestion, there is no clear evidence of the installation of smoke alarms at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants, on the other hand, were clear in their evidence that there were never smoke alarms installed.
On balance I accept the evidence of the tenants in this regard.
Accordingly, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows: a. The actions of the landlord were either intentional or wilful blindness. This is clear from the absence of evidence of the presence of smoke alarms at the commencement of the tenancy. b. The effect of this on the tenants was one of safety, and risk of significant harm of even death in the event of a fire. c. There is a clear public interest in the provision and maintenance of functioning smoke alarms. Parliament has made it intentions clear on this in the legislation, and in my view, the Tribunal cannot be seen to condone breaches of the law, particularly when it comes to safety.
In the circumstances, I consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate and I award $1000.00. Ventilation
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
At the time this tenancy commenced, on 1 June 2022, compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
Having seen the photographs and heard the evidence, I conclude that there are no ventilation fans in the bathroom or kitchen.
The tenants have provided photos of the kitchen and bathroom showing that they were absent. The tenants’ oral evidence is that there were no ventilation fans installed during the tenancy.
Further, [The builder/s] (that landlord’s builder) notes that there were no ventilation fans when he inspected the dwelling in June 2022. He visited the premises again in September to establish the scope of work for bathroom repair and made no notes about fans being installed.
There is no evidence from the landlord relating to the installation of ventilation fans.
Accordingly, I conclude the landlord has failed to meet its obligations in relation to ventilation fans. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows: a. The landlord’s actions must have been intentional. There is clearly some knowledge of the HHS as the landlord has had a heat pump installed and had this checked in September 2022. b. The effect on the tenants was to live in a house with increased moisture and a reduced ability to properly ventilate for health and mould purposes. c. Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in housing stock remaining, safe, health, warm and dry. This is reflected in the introduction of the HHS and was well advertised to landlords and the public.
Considering the duration that this property was non-compliant, I consider that an award of exemplary damages is justified, and I award $1000.00 Failure to maintain
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.
The tenants’ claim relates to the time taken to repair the bathroom and the fireplace, together with the compliance with HHS.
The tenants very responsibly accept that they have not lost any use of the premises during this time, and they have had both a functioning bathroom and the heat pump for use.
The tenants were rather frustrated by the delays and lack of communications, having been told the work would be done.
On balance, I do not consider that there have been significant failures by the landlord to maintain the property. The bathroom was functional and there was a heat pump installed. The work was improvements rather than necessary repairs and maintenance. Further, I am mindful of the orders made in relation to non- compliance with HHS in their own right.
Accordingly, this aspect of the tenants’ claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4696069 — Exemplary damages at 154 No 8 Road, Springdale, RD 4, Springdale 3374

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4696069 — Exemplary damages at 154 No 8 Road, Springdale, RD 4, Springdale 3374

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