What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4709990 about?

The tribunal order states: Housing People (2011) Limited - As Agent For Sherwood House must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4709990?

Property Damage: $1,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4709990?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4709990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9908387-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4709990 about?

The tribunal order states: Housing People (2011) Limited - As Agent For Sherwood House must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4709990?

Property Damage: $1,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4709990?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4709990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9908387-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 50 Exeter Crescent, Pirimai, Napier 4112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4709990 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4709990 — net $2,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$350.00	fail to lodge bond
Compensation: Fail to repair	$1,750.00	Fail to repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,120.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,120.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants attended by teleconference. Background

This was a fixed term tenancy, for a term from 25 February 2022 to 24 February 2023.

The tenants’ evidence is that they were told during the tenancy that the property would be sold and that there would be no opportunity to continue the tenancy beyond the end of the fixed term.

The tenants gave the landlord a notice dated 13 January 2023, “We do not want to renew our contract which ends on the 24th Friday February.” Improper Termination

Section 60AA provides that. “A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.”

The tenants claim that the tenancy was improperly terminated because after they had been told a renewal of the term would not be possible, as the property was being sold, it has nonetheless been re-rented after their tenancy ended.

The landlord denies that there was any fixed intention to sell the property, saying that the owner needed to sell a property and that an appraisal of this property was done, but that ultimately a different property was sold. In any event, the end of the tenancy was brought about by the tenants giving notice that they would not extend the tenancy beyond the end of the fixed term. That notice brought the tenancy to an end on 24 February 2023 in terms of s.60A(2)(c).

It follows that the landlord cannot be found to have improperly terminated the tenancy. Bond

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord did not lodge the bond within the prescribed period and has committed an unlawful act. The landlord acknowledges the failure, which it says was due to oversight.

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 tenants left the premises and stopped paying rent 2 weeks before the tenancy end date. It was agreed that those 2 weeks’ rent would be taken from the bond. There were no other claims by landlords against the bond.

There is a conflict in the evidence about what steps were taken to allow the tenants to recover their remaining 2 weeks’ bond. The first attempt shown in the evidence is an e-mail sent by the landlord to the tenants on 30 March 2023 with the completed bond form, asking them to sign it and send it back. That is some 6 weeks after the tenancy had ended and the tenants had become entitled to that payment.

The landlord’s evidence is that the email was returned as undeliverable and that on the same day the landlords contacted the tenants and arranged to meet with them in person at a café to sign the bond refund form.

That is not the tenant’s recollection of events, but the landlord’s narrative is corroborated by the signed bond refund form which is also dated 30 March 2023.

Delays in returning the bond to which the tenants were entitled, is not directly relevant to the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond within the prescribed time frame. It does however have some relevance to my assessment of the landlord’s intent in failing to lodge the bond on time. It shows in my view an inappropriately “relaxed” attitude by the landlord in dealing with what is the tenants’ bond money.

I take that into account in assessing an appropriate award of exemplary damages, as well as taking into account that the bond was in fact later lodged and the tenants did later receive the agreed portion of their bond back. Maintenance and repair

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under s.45 of the RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching that 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 tenants claim that the landlord breached those obligations by: a.failing to repair a faulty light socket ion the dining room; b.failing to repair a faulty oven and cooktop c.failing to address causes of mould in the premises. Dining Room light

The tenants provided video evidence taken from the end of the tenancy which shows a severely flickering light in the dining room. The evidence shows that the effect of the flickering meant that the light was really not usable. The tenants say that the cause cannot have been a faulty light bulb, which would have been their responsibility to replace, because that light bulb had already been replaced.

An inspection report dated 6 April 2022 notes the dining light as damaged. The evidence persuades me that the landlord did not repair the fault and that the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises was affected by the inability to use the dining room light, effectively throughout the whole of the tenancy. Modest compensation is due which I assess at $10.00 per week for 50.00 weeks of the tenancy. Oven

The tenants’ evidence is that the stove top was faulty as there was no temperature control and the elements were either off or at full heat. They say that the oven worked intermittently. The property manager says that he assessed the issue as being a faulty simmerstat in one of the elements. There were delays in getting that addressed by an electrician and ultimately the property manager replaced the simmerstat himself. He says that after replacing that one simmerstat and assessing the rest of the elements as working properly, he heard nothing further about problems with the stove top or oven from the tenants, or indeed from the new tenants of the premises.

The tenants are certain that the landlord only visited the premises once in April and once more some 11 months into the tenancy, which must have been when the simmerstat was replaced. They sat that after the replacement of that simmerstat the problems with the oven persisted.

Again, the issues with the stove top were noted in the 6 April 2022 inspection report.

I find it proved on the balance of probabilities that the stove top and oven were not working correctly. I am persuaded that those flaws had a significant impact on the utility of the premises and the tenants’ use of enjoyment of them which persisted again, largely throughout the tenancy. I find that compensation of $25.00 per week for the 50 weeks of the tenancy would be appropriate as compensation.

In the circumstances I do not consider it just to make an award of exemplary damages in addition to the compensation awarded. There do appear to have been attempts made by the property managers to address the issues albeit more slowly than the tenants were entitled to have them addressed. Mould

The tenants claim that sizeable paintings of great personal value to them were damaged by mould at the premises and they should be compensated for their loss. They say that peeling paint and damaged surfaces beneath the paint indicate existing mould, painted over before the start of their tenancy.

They are particularly aggrieved that when raising the issue with the landlord, they were told the fault for the mould developing was theirs. The property manager’s evidence is that a healthy homes assessment has been carried out and the report shows that the premises are compliant with relevant standards for ventilation and for water ingress. Inexplicably, a copy of that report was not provided in evidence.

Causes of mould growth may be multiple. I could not make a confident finding about the most likely cause of the mould growth which damaged the tenants’ paintings, without some clearer and preferably expert evidence. As this is the tenants’ claim, the onus is on them to provide evidence that shows that it is more likely than not that the mould damage to their paintings was caused by a breach of the landlord’s obligations to them under their agreement or under the act. The evidence available at the hearing does not meet that proof threshold and the claim is dismissed. Methamphetamine contamination

The tenants say that during the tenancy neighbours gave them concerning information about the premises - smells of cat urine, gang affiliated tenants and worrying activities at the premises. That information leads the tenants to believe that the premises may have been used for methamphetamine manufacture or use. They say they ought to have been warned by the landlord but were not.

The landlord’s evidence is that prior tenancies have given no cause for concern that the premises may have been contaminated by methamphetamine. No baseline test was conducted before the start of this tenancy.

There is no evidence of the tenants having brought this concern to the landlord’s attention during the tenancy.

As this is the tenants’ claim, again it is for them to bring evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the existence of a health risk from methamphetamine contamination that they were not informed about. The evidence does not meet that threshold. The claim is dismissed. Reference

The tenants’ evidence is that they were promised a written reference at the end of their tenancy but that no such reference was provided. They say that their attempts to find alternative accommodation were effectively “sabotaged” when one of the property managers, who was called by a prospective landlord, said that [Tenant 1] was aggressive and effectively an undesirable tenant.

The landlord acknowledges that the tenants were promised a written reference. That changed after the meeting on 30 March 2023 when [Tenant 1] was confrontational about the landlord not having provided a written reference earlier as promised and about other claimed failures by the landlord.

There is no dispute that prior to that confrontation, the landlord acknowledged the tenants as very good tenants who paid the rent on time and kept the premises in immaculate condition.

In my view it is completely inappropriate for the landlord to have failed to provide a written reference for the tenants at the end of the tenancy as promised. To breach that promise and then to give an unfavourable report of [Tenant 1], due to matters that had no direct bearing on his suitability as a tenant, is in my view a misuse of the landlord’s power over the tenant’s future renting prospects.

That said, there is nothing in the agreement or the RTA that compels a landlord to provide a written or other reference for a tenant. The tenants are only entitled to compensation for a breach of a legal obligation owed to them by the landlord. Here, there is no such obligation and this claim must be dismissed. Work Orders

The tenants’ application includes c alim for work Orders to be made. The tenancy having ended those Orders are not pursued.

Because [The tenant/s] have succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4709990 — net $2,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$350.00	fail to lodge bond
Compensation: Fail to repair	$1,750.00	Fail to repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,120.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,120.44