What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4719737?

The tribunal order states: J And T Dobbs Family Investments Limited must pay Moritz Padrutt, Leon Rall

How much money was awarded in case 4719737?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Power: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Benchtop: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719737?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719737?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10423553-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4719737?

The tribunal order states: J And T Dobbs Family Investments Limited must pay Moritz Padrutt, Leon Rall

How much money was awarded in case 4719737?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Power: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Benchtop: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719737?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719737?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10423553-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Santiago Crescent, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4719737 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719737 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Repairs: benchtop	$500.00		Repairs: benchtop
Compensation: power		$100.00	power
Exemplary damages – failure to comply		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – failure to comply
Exemplary damages – unlawful entry		$500.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful entry
Total award	$850.00	$1,600.00
Net award		$750.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$750.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719737 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Repairs: benchtop	$500.00		Repairs: benchtop
Compensation: power		$100.00	power
Exemplary damages – failure to comply		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – failure to comply
Exemplary damages – unlawful entry		$500.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful entry
Total award	$850.00	$1,600.00
Net award		$750.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$750.00

Order

J And T Dobbs Family Investments Limited must pay Moritz Padrutt, Leon Rall Koen and Josh Padrutt $750.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3727365-006) to Moritz Padrutt, Leon Rall Koen and Josh Padrutt immediately.
The remaining applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants seek a declaration that the premises is unlawful, compensation/exemplary damages for failure to comply with the Healthy Homes standards (“HHS”) failure to maintain the premises, entry without notice, failure to provide contamination testing results, damage to furniture, and interference with utilities.
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
For the sake of brevity, I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Background
This tenancy commenced on 30 July 2022 and ended on 15 October 2023.
The dwelling is a 4-bedroom house, spread over two levels. Upstairs is 3 bedrooms, a bathroom, living area, kitchen and laundry, downstairs is a bedroom, bathroom, rumpus room and bar area.
The tenants are a group of university students, for whom the downstairs living area was a useful part of the premises for socialising.
The premises was damages in January 2023, with the flooding that arose from Cyclone Gabrielle. The bottom of the premises was damaged and unable to be used form 27 January 2023 to 5 October 2023.
The rent was abated by $200 per from 28 January to 5 May, and by $300 per week from 6 May 2023 to 7 October 2023 to reflect the inability to use the downstairs portion of the house.
During the repair work, the GIB was removed. This indicated that there was mould and moisture damage to the framework as well as the water damage to the interior GIB.
There was no Council consent sought from the repair work. Which the tenant alleges is unlawful.

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

Section 78A(2) of the Act states: For the purposes of this Act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a) that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and (b) where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), ..., has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
“Residential premises” is defined in section 2(1) of the Act as any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
“Premises” is defined in section 2 of that Act as including: (a) Any part of any premises; and (b) Any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
Section 36 of the Act states that: The landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
Section 45(1)(c) states that: (1)The landlord shall – ..... (c) Comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises;
The premises is clearly a residential premises, in that it is used for occupation as a place of residence. Put simply, it was intended that the tenants live in the premises, and the tenants did, in fact, live there.
The question is whether the premises can be lawfully occupied as residential premises, either generally or for the particular residential purposes for which the tenant occupied it, and whether the landlord’s failure to comply with either section 35 or section 45(1)(c) caused or contributed to the unlawfulness of the occupation.
In the present case, the particular residential purposes concerned is the occupation of the premises generally. There is no evidence to suggest that the premises is not consented for residential occupation. The tenant’s argument is based on the failure to obtain consent for work and repairs done.
Given both limbs of section 78A(2) must be satisfied before a premises is deemed an unlawful residential premises, I consider the tenant’s claim must fail at this point. In the absence of a Council notice that the premises is uninhabitable, its continued use for residential purposes is lawful.
There is no evidence of such written notice.
Accordingly, the premises is not an unlawful residential premises.
For completeness, I do not accept that submission that the repair work required building consent. That means the fact that the repair work was not consented does not render this an unlawful residential premises.
Mr Shand, for the tenants, referred me to the Building Act 2004 and the schedule of exceptions to the requirement that all building works require consent. This included repair and maintenance work, so long as that work is not required because a building element has failed to satisfy the provisions of the building code for durability, for example, through a failure to comply with the external moisture requirements of the building code. The building code requires building elements such at the moisture barriers in the deck to continue to meet the requirements of the code for at least 15 years.
The deck was constructed in 2001. The repair work was done in 2021, so well outside that 15-year timeframe. Accordingly, the repair work falls within the exception to consent requirements set out in Schedule 1 of the Building Act.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15 October 2023.
The landlord submits that the tenants did not give 28 days to vacate the premises, and instead gave 1 week notice. The landlord seeks the remaining 3 weeks as notice.
The tenants accept that they only gave 1 week notice, on the basis that the landlord told them to move out.
The tenants provided me with a recording of a conversation between them and the landlord on or about 4 October 2023, about access to the downstairs part of the house to take photographs for their application. The landlord denied them this access.
The conversation was acrimonious, with the landlord telling the tenants, inter alia, if they didn’t like it, they should move out. That they should leave the next day, and to “fuck off and never approach me again.”
The tenants sought alternative accommodation and moved out.
I consider that the tenants were entitled to rely on the landlord’s invitation to leave on short notice. While the landlord says that she only said those things because she was angry, there was no contact later to apologise or put right the comments made. In the circumstances, I consider the landlord effectively consented to short notice termination.
The application for arrears is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord alleges that the exterior of the premises and the interior were not left reasonably tidy. The tenants accept that the interior was not reasonably tidy, but the exterior was reasonably tidy.
The landlord’s photographs of the exterior were taken on 13 October 2023. The tenants have a video of lawn work being done on 14 October. There is a further landlord photo of part of the exterior on 20 October 2023. There are no photographs of the entire exterior after 15 October 2023.
On balance, I am satisfied the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A burn to the Formica benchtop. b. Damage to the exterior wall downstairs.
The damage to the benchtop is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount sought by the landlord is the quoted cost to repair the damage. The landlord accepts the damage has not been repaired. The tenants argue that as the benchtop has not been repaired and the premises has been re- tenanted, there is no loss. On its face, the tenants’ argument has merit, as there is no clear loss set out. However, that overlooks the loss of value and the clear fact that the damage was caused by the tenants’ carelessness. When taking section 85 into account, I consider that the landlord is entitled to compensation for the damage caused. That damage is a breach of the Act. Accordingly, I award $500.00 compensation pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act.
In relation to the hole in the exterior cladding downstairs, the landlord claims that the tenants broke this either intentionally or carelessly, by pushing it inwards when it wasn’t property supported.
The tenants accept that the damage was done by one on the tenant’s fathers. They were looking at the damage to the wall following the flooding, and his father pushed on the cladding with his thumb, this caused a portion to break off. The tenant texted the landlord at the time to advise of this damage and how it happened. The tenants’ position is that this was only possible because the wall was weakened by water damage.
It is accepted by both parties that, if the cladding wasn’t damaged, it would take more force than pushing with thumbs to break it. That is the basis of the landlord’s claim that it was clearly more force that could be deemed accidental, and the tenants’ claim that the cladding was damaged.
The landlords did not observe the damage occurring. The tenant did. Further, the area that was damaged was subject to water damage in the flooding (inside and through the insulation) and likely previously given the mould and rot in the framing.
Taking those factors into account, I consider it more likely than not that the cladding was weakened by prolonged water exposure. I accept the tenants’ explanation for how the damage happened and consider that they have disproved liability for it. Outgoings
The landlord seeks compensation for the cost of gas bottles supplied at the commencement of the tenancy, and not there at the end of the tenancy.
The gas bottles were leased from Matagas.
The tenants acknowledge there were gas bottles at the commencement of the tenancy. However, in October they appeared to run out (based on the shower running cold) so the tenants contacted the property manager to arrange a replacement. The property manager told the tenants that gas was their responsibility and they needed to arrange it themselves via the gas company. The tenants contacted Matagas and were told that they needed to set up their own account if the wanted to arrange the gas themselves. When they did so, the leased gas bottles were collected and removed by Matagas. The tenants used smaller 9kg gas bottles instead.
I consider that the tenants were entitled to rely on the advice given to them by the property manager, and to follow the process required by Matagas. The gas bottes were the property of Matagas, not the landlord, so the landlord’s recourse is with Matagas in relation to the lease fees.
In relation to the gas portion, the Act requires tenant to pay for outgoings exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises, so they would have to pay for gas used during the tenancy. I do not consider that extends to leaving full gas bottles at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s application is declined.
The tenants seek a contribution to the power invoices for the period that dehumidifiers were running at the premises to dry out the carpets and the framing, and for the periods that contractors were using their power to run tools and equipment.
They assess the increased in power invoices over this time as $100.
This quantum is set unscientifically. However, as indicated, the tenants are liable for outgoings exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises. They could have sought reimbursement of all power used in the period of drying and repair work. Accordingly, I consider the claim for $100 is a reasonable contribution and it is granted. Exemplary Damages generally
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 is able to 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. Failure to Maintain and loss of Amenity, damage to furniture.
Moritz Padrutt, Leon Rall Koen and Josh Padrutt claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 tenant alleges the landlord has failed to maintain the premises following the flooding across Auckland in January 2023, noting the premises was not repaired until October 2023.
Further the tenant claims the landlord has failed to maintain the premises as the repair work following the flooding revealed mould and rot in the framing of the downstairs bar area.
There was previous leaking in the upstairs deck and ranch slider area, which led to the replacement of the waterproofing membrane on the deck, replacement of the veranda and replacement of the downstairs ceiling area in 2021. The landlord accepts that no repairs or investigations were undertaken into whether there was water damage to the wall at that time as it did not show signs of water damage and it was some meters from where the water was leaking through the ceiling.
The tenants accept that there were no visible signs of water damage to the walls prior to the removal of the Gib.
A landlord has an obligation, pursuant to s45 to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. However, the landlord must be aware of the need for those repairs for the obligation to be triggered (other than for regular, routine maintenance, for example gutter clearing and tree trimming).
The damage to the framing in the wall was not known until the cladding was removed. The landlord was entirely unaware of the issue until then. Following discovery, there was an obligation to repair. The tenants are critical of the steps taken to treat the damage, including mould and rot. The tenants relied on reports from Eagle and Franich and Oncore in relation to the concern about re-gibbing over rotted framing.
The landlord’s position is that the mould was treated, the significantly damaged and rotted portions of framing were replaced, and they relied on their builders for advice about what steps were necessary.
I consider that was reasonable. The landlords are not professionals and are entitled to rely on their builders. Further, I cannot see evidence that either Eagle and Franich or Oncore was aware that parts of the framing was replaced, the framing was given time to dry, and that the mould was treated prior to re-gibbing.
In relation to the flood damage, the landlord accepts the delay in undertaking repairs, but notes that there were huge pressures accessing insurance assistance and the finding tradespeople to undertake the necessary work.
I consider that there was no failure to maintain in relation to the repair work on the wall. While I acknowledge the concerns set out in the tenant’s reports, the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of their builders. In the absence of evidence that the framing remains wet, or there are further issues, I cannot fault the landlord’s approach.
In relation to the flood damage, I accept that there were delays in repairing the damages. However, this was a city-wide issue in the aftermath of cyclone Gabrielle.
The effect of the delays was that the tenants have lost the use of a significant portion of the premises they agreed to rent. This included a bedroom, bathroom and living area used a lot by the tenants. In addition, the tenants were subjected to the very unpleasant smell of rotting carpet until it was removed, and ongoing smells following that.
That said, I do not consider the landlord has acted intentionally. They were waiting for the insurance assessment process to be completed to confirm what repairs would be funded. There was a significant delay in this due to the manner in which claims were prioritised.
Nor do I consider that the stigma of an award of exemplary damages is warranted in a case such as this.
I do not overlook the long-lasting, loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. I consider they are entitled to compensation for that loss of amenity.
That said, the landlord agreed to a rent abatement of $200 per week from 28 January 2023 to 5 May 2023, and an abatement of $300 per week from 6 May 2023 until the end of the tenancy.
I have carefully considered whether a further rent abatement should be allowed. I note that the amounts allowed by the landlord were at the tenant’s request. The tenant suggested the amounts and the landlord agreed.
The tenants noted that following the loss of the use of one bedroom, they had a flatmate move out, spreading the rent cost across 3 people, so they effectively did not get any relief for the loss of use of the downstairs living area. I consider that this is not something I can take into account. The premises was rented as a whole, and the rent was set for the entire premises. How the tenants apportioned that was up to them. The reduction of rent was a benefit to the remaining tenants as without it, they would have each paid a greater share of the total to make up for the reduced number of tenants.
On balance, I do not consider that a further rent abatement should apply. The tenants sought the rent abatement, set the figures and the landlord agreed. I see no reason to set that agreement aside now.
The tenants seek compensation for mould damage the furniture which had to ne left downstairs following the flooding. The tenants had not room to store it elsewhere. Given my findings in relation to the reasons for the delay in repairs I do not consider that the landlords should be liable for this damage. Further, I consider the tenants did not take sufficient steps, or any steps, to mitigate their loss. The furniture was left in the downstairs rumpus room, which was the most affected by flooding. There was no evidence of any steps taken to reduce the chances of moisture damage.
This portion of the tenants’ claim is dismissed. Entry without notice
Moritz Padrutt, Leon Rall Koen and Josh Padrutt claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord regularly entered the premises during the repair works. The tenants say that she did not give notice. The landlord says she told the property manager, however there is no evidence to suggest this was passed on to the tenants. Further the notice related more to the dates that repair work would be occurring and not the dates and times the landlord would be present.
It is clear, from the recording the tenants played, and from the landlord’s own evidence, that she considers that when the repairs were being carried out, the worksite was not part of the premises, that the tenants could not access it, and she could come and go as she pleased. This is not correct. I find she has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to the landlord and contractors coming and going as they please, to repeated requests to be let in, and phone calls or texts on occasions the tenants weren’t home, and the landlord or contractors wanted to be let in.
I consider the landlord acted intentionally. She did not appear to understand that even during the repair process appropriate notice was required to enter the premises.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, including maintaining the tenants’ privacy and respecting their right to quiet enjoyment by ensure that all entry onto premises was with the requisite notice.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $500.00. Failure to comply with HHS.
Moritz Padrutt, Leon Rall Koen and Josh Padrutt 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). Moritz Padrutt, Leon Rall Koen and Josh Padrutt considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. 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 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
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).
In this case I have determined that the landlord has breached this obligation. The landlords HHS assessment in 2021 showed that the premises was not compliant for drainage at that point, requiring plants to be cleared from the drains. There are no details around whether or when that work was undertaken.
A further HHS assessment obtained by the tenants in 2023 showed that the premises remained non-compliant with the drainage standards, repeating the concern about plant grown, but also noting missing out broken down pipes.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a home without proper drainage. When combined with the water damage issues and mould, the tenants concern about this is reasonable.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to attend to this. She was on notice at the date of receiving the first HHS assessment. Further, plant growth and gutter clearing are routine maintenance items which must be assessed and attended to regularly to ensure ongoing compliance.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case, and I award $1,000.00. Interference with services
Moritz Padrutt, Leon Rall Koen and Josh Padrutt claims the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On further discussion, it was apparent that the main concern was the failure to isolate the power supply to the downstairs of the premises following water damage.
While the tenant’s safety concerns are acknowledged, I cannot see any actual loss arising from this. Failure to provide results of contamination testing.
The tenants claim the landlord has breached s48(3B) by not providing the results of asbestos testing undertaken at the premises.
Section 48(3B) states: If premises are entered for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing (including as part of any decontamination process), the landlord must, within 7 days of receiving the results of the testing, notify the tenant, in writing, of the results of the testing and provide the tenant with a copy (if any) of the results.
“Contaminant” is defined in s2(1) of the Act as: contaminant means any of the following: (a)methamphetamine: (b)any substance prescribed, or within a class of substance prescribed, as being a contaminant for the purposes of this Act.
At the date of hearing, the regulations in relation to contamination have still not been passed into law. Accordingly, there is no evidence that asbestos will ne a prescribed substance, and the obligation under s48(3B) does not apply.
The tenants’ application is dismissed. Costs
Both parties seek costs.
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) relates to costs. Section 102(2) confirms that the Tribunal “may make an order” where “any of the parties was presented by counsel”. Subsection 3 confirms that an order may be made to a party for “the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings.”
While section 102 does not specify that cost can only be paid by the losing party to the successful party, that is the ordinary course.
In the present case, neither party can be said to have been wholly or substantially successful. Accordingly, I consider each party should be liable for its own costs. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
Both parties sought suppression of their names. As stated, neither was wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the parties’ names and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the parties and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the parties’ interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719737 — Exemplary damages at 20 Santiago Crescent, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719737 — Exemplary damages at 20 Santiago Crescent, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions