What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4699277 about?

The tribunal order states: Rentcare Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $6,360.44

How much money was awarded in case 4699277?

Compensation: -Breach Of Work Orders: $4,840.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699277?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9791780-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4699277 about?

The tribunal order states: Rentcare Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $6,360.44

How much money was awarded in case 4699277?

Compensation: -Breach Of Work Orders: $4,840.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699277?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9791780-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4699277 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4699277 — net $6,360.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: -breach of work orders	$4,840.00	-breach of work orders
Exemplary damages: -breach of work orders	$1,500.00	-breach of work orders
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,360.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,360.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4699277 — net $6,360.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: -breach of work orders	$4,840.00	-breach of work orders
Exemplary damages: -breach of work orders	$1,500.00	-breach of work orders
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,360.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,360.44

Order

Rentcare Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $6,360.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 9 March 2023, the Tribunal made work orders (by consent) against the landlord under applications 4426320 and 4479220. The tenant claims the landlord has breached the work orders and seeks compensation and exemplary damages for the breach.
Breaching a work order without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The works orders made by consent and recorded in the Tribunal order dated 9 March 2023 were; “3. The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 31 March 2023: a. Repair the bathroom sink hot water tap to stop it from leaking; b. Remedy the ceiling in the bathroom which is flaking so that it looks presentable; c. Arrange for a builder to assess the cracks in the walls near the chimney and whether any remedial work is required for health and safety reasons.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 14 April 2023 or within such further time which is reasonable should the company instructed to complete the repairs require further time to complete the work: a. Repair the window in the small bedroom; b. Repair the sash windows throughout the house so that they are easier to open and close.”
Both parties agree that the landlord complied with order 3a by repairing the hot water tap. The landlord also says, and I accept, that order 3c was completed with the builder who re-gibbed the bathroom ceiling inspecting the wall cracks near the chimney. He determined that no remedial work was required for health and safety reasons, although the landlord did not advise the tenant of this outcome.
The tenant says that while the landlord started on order 3b by re-gibbing the bathroom ceiling before the deadline of 31 March 2023, they did not plaster and paint the ceiling as required. She reports that the plasterer engaged by the landlord turned up to do the work, but he could not proceed because the ceiling was too high, and he needed to bring a taller ladder. He left some of his equipment at the premises and advised the tenant of an alternative date. The tenant had been told by the landlord that the plasterer could only attend on Saturdays which was not ideal for her. However, she says that the plasterer told her he could come anytime to suit and a second visit during the week was arranged. The plasterer then cancelled the second visit because he had COVID. Subsequently, he rang the tenant and said that he had been instructed by Rentcare not to do further work, but he would come and collect his equipment. He never did so, and the tenant says the equipment is still at the premises.
The tenant says that no other work orders were completed prior to her lodging this application with the Tribunal. She says that she did not formally follow up with the landlord about this before lodging the application. However, she said that there were two or three inspections carried out during this period by one of the property managers, Jeremy; she had spoken to him about it; and, he knew the work had not been done.
The remaining work in orders 3 and 4 was only completed by Monday 11 December 2023, more than 34 weeks after the final deadline in order 4 of 14 April 2023. The tenant seeks compensation of $140/week for the period that the work was outstanding. This is the difference between the rent she was paying and the rent rate that took effect from 10 March 2023. Her claim is on the basis that the increased rent was only justified if the landlord completed the maintenance work required and ordered by the Tribunal.
The landlord’s evidence may be summarised as follows: a. They understood that the plasterer had completed the plastering and painting work as he submitted, and they paid, his invoice for the work; b. They claim that the tenant denied the plasterer access, but this is denied by the tenant and there is no evidence to support the claim; c. The landlords rolled out a new inspection process and had incorrectly recorded the address for these premises under a neighbouring address. (They manage three flats in the complex). This means that they incorrectly assessed that the bathroom ceiling in another property, which was painted and plastered, was for this tenancy; d. The landlord had issued work orders for the window repairs to an external contractor and assumed that the work had been done. They believe the window repair in the small bedroom was done by 15 March 2023 but were unable to provide proof such as an invoice from the contractor. They were not aware the remaining work was outstanding until the tenant lodged this application and note that it was not reported to them by the tenant; e. The landlord was advised by their contractor that there had been issues arranging the required scaffolding for the work. The landlord says that they expect their contractors to contact tenants and keep them informed. They had assumed the window company would have done so and also assumed that they had completed the work. However, there was no evidence of the contractor submitting an invoice for any of the work prior to this application being lodged. Therefore, there is no reasonable basis for the landlord’s assumption.
After considering all the available evidence, including the parties’ oral evidence and submissions at the hearing, I find that the landlord breached their obligation to carry out all of the work orders as required. While the landlord may have instructed external contractors to do the work by the due dates in the Tribunal order, they failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the work was actually done or on track, by proactively checking in with their contractors and checking the premises. Given that the work was ordered under a Tribunal order, the responsibility to ensure the work was done rested firmly with the landlord. In those circumstances, it is not incumbent on the tenant to chase up. Simply leaving the work to an external contractor and failing to follow up with the contractor that the work has been done or is on track for completion by the deadline in the Tribunal order, is not acceptable. I also do not accept that the address error made when rolling out the new inspection process provides the landlord with a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the orders. The landlord continued to carry out property inspections during this time, and it is reasonable to assume that they knew, or ought to have known, that the work was still outstanding.
The tenant is entitled to compensation, and I consider the sum sought of $140 for every week that the remaining work was outstanding is reasonable. I award compensation of $4,840.
Breaching a Tribunal work order without reasonable excuse is 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) RTA.
I have already found that the landlord’s explanations for failing to comply with the work orders are not a reasonable excuse. Therefore, the breach is an unlawful act.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention in s109 has been established in that the landlord failed to adopt a robust process to ensure that the work orders were carried out. The landlord knew, or should have known, that if they did not have a good process for checking that the work orders were completed, a breach would be a likely consequence. The failure to complete the maintenance work as ordered caused the tenant further frustration and annoyance, particularly given the rent increase. It is of significant interest both to the tenant, the Public and this Tribunal that landlords comply with their obligations and with Tribunal orders. I find that an award of exemplary damages is justified, and I award $1,500.
As the tenant has succeeded with her claims, she is entitled to suppression of her name and identifying details and reimbursement of the filing fee.
I note that both the tenant and landlord’s identifying details were suppressed under the previous Tribunal order referred to in paragraph 2 above. Suppression continues for the tenant. However, given the landlord’s breach, the landlord’s details are no longer suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699277 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699277 — Exemplary damages

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