What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720825 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4720825?

Compensation: $3,275.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720825?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11286721-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720825 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4720825?

Compensation: $3,275.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720825?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11286721-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 John Rymer Place, Kohimarama, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4720825 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720825 — net $7,395.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,275.00	Compensation
General damages	$500.00	General damages
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,395.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,395.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720825 — net $7,395.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,275.00	Compensation
General damages	$500.00	General damages
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,395.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,395.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names.
Jr Holdings Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $7,395.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation$3,275.00 General damages$500.00 Exemplary damages$3,600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$7,395.44

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord. This matter returns to the Tribunal following a rehearing granted, which means I must consider the matter afresh.
The tenant’s claim relates to a hole which developed in the floor of the dining room, and doors which could not open, and associated with that is a claim that the landlord failed to maintain or repair the premises. The tenants seek compensation, general and exemplary damages.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today, although the landlord was represented by Mr Dai from its agent, Global Property Limited. As I noted at the hearing, where a landlord has an agent, it is the landlord who would be liable for any orders made, not the agent.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 23 September 2021, however, there was a change of composition of tenants during the course of the tenancy, and that was by way of a variation of the tenancy agreement. That variation of the tenancy also extended the end date of the fixed-term tenancy to 24 March 2023. The rent was $900.00 per week.
I summarise what then happened as follows: a. On 14 November 2022 the tenants notified the landlord of an issue with the floor in the dining room and a door. The email states: Hi David, I just wanted to reach out as there has been issue following all the rain last week. This has affected dining area and French doors + framing. There is also no drainage outside, so the water is running off the development above and pulling in the patio area / deck. I have attached photos below, showing the door frame rotting, and also a tile that has given away. One side of the French doors also does not open smoothly or fully. I have also attached a photo of how the water is collecting and not draining on the patio. b. As noted the tenants provided a photograph in that email which clearly shows that the tiles in one area had sunk. There was also photographic evidence of water damage to the internal door sill for an external door. c. The agent confirmed receipt of that email the same day, advising it would be sent to the landlord. d. There was no response from the landlord / agent, so the tenants sent a reminder email on 14 December 2022 : I was wondering if there was any update on whether the tiles will be fixed? e. The first communication in response was then on 28 February 2023, where the agent states: The property owner informed us that there is a back garden CCTV installation arranged by the contractor asking if Thursday is fine for the job (sic) f. No evidence has been provided to the Tribunal from that inspection, but I understand it was most likely related to a camera inspection of the drains, rather than inspecting the floor specifically or ‘installing’ cameras. g. On 1 May 2023 the tenants advised the landlord of further damage: I just wanted to follow up about the tiles that have dropped in our dining room area, since the latest rain yesterday a few of the others in the opposite corner have movement in them. I also wanted to let you know that since the rain, the door out the laundry is very difficult to unlock and open on the opposite side to the handle, so cannot be opened easily on both sides. h. On 12 May 2023 the tenants again followed up with the landlord reporting further issues: I just wanted to check if you had got my email and if there is any update on whether someone would be able to please come and look at the door/s to the outside patio area and washing machine, as we are not able to open any wide enough to move things outside bracket such as washing lines, etc). i. On 15 May 2023, the tenants report that an area of the floor had entirely collapsed: I am emailing to let you know that while moving around the house one of us fell through the tiles, as a result of the tiles dropping/door leak you have been following up on since last November. There is now a hole in the floor because of this and it has creating a draft unless we cover it. I have attached a photo and can provide further details as required. j. That same day the agent advised that the issues would be again forwarded to the landlord. k. On 16 May 2023 the landlord asked when the tenants would be home to forward a ‘subcontractor’ to the premises. The email does not explain who that was or what the attendance was for. l. It is not clear to me if or when anyone did attend. I note an email from 24 May 2023, where the tenants say: Thanks for organising someone to come and look at the floor and doors. I was wondering if there was any update on this? The house has become even more damp and cold due to the hole in the floor, despite our efforts to cover it, so we wanted to understand if there is any possibility for relief for rent amount due to these conditions? m. On 24 May 2023 the agent responded advising that the request for a rent reduction had been forwarded to the landlord, and stating that a subcontractor had provided an update following an inspection of the property, and that a claim would be made with the insurer. For completeness, the email does not say what the contractor found or advised. n. On 2 June 2023 the tenants issued the landlord a 14 day notice to remedy the “hole in the floor and door access into the house (through doors to patio).” This required the work to be completed by 18 June 2023. o. On 18 June 2023, the agent emailed the tenants, declining to provide them compensation, and advising that the insurer had not advised its position, so “as of the weekend, no work schedule has been provided for the repairs”. However the agent advised that a contractor would attend to make “temporary repairs”. p. On or around 24 June 2023, a tradesperson attended for the landlord, and glued a piece of plywood on top of the tiles to cover the floor hole as a temporary repair. q. On 20 June 2023 the tenants gave notice ending the tenancy, which was then a periodic tenancy. The tenants later requested an early end date, but the landlord did not agree with that, requiring that rent be paid to 18 July 2023. r. The tenants vacated the premises on 2 July 2023, but rent was paid to the later termination date.
On 24 October 2023 the tenants filed this application with the Tribunal.
A hearing was convened before the Tribunal, before adjudicator Mr Yi. Mr Yi issued a decision dated 8 August 2024. There was no appearance by the landlord at the hearing.
The landlord applied for a rehearing, and that was granted by Mr Yi.
A new hearing was scheduled before myself, which was on 10 January 2025. The tenants attended. The landlord was represented by Mr Dai from Global Property Limited, who was the agent at the relevant times.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants state that in November 2022 there was a problem where the tiles in the dining room ‘dropped’ and they had problems with opening the door. The tenants state that they raised this with the landlord on multiple occasions. Subsequently, they had problems opening other doors on that wall, which limited their ability to access their back yard.
On 15 May there was more significant damage caused to the floor, when one of the tenants stepped on the dining room floor depression, falling through the floor.
The tenants say that this resulted in a hole in the floor, and say this caused them health problems, although I have not received any medical evidence supporting that. The tenants advised that because there were no internal doors, they could not isolate the effects from the floor hole, so in effect, they could no use the whole of the bottom level of the house.
The tenants were critical about the delay in getting the floor hole fixed, and in fact the repair from the landlord was only temporary, where a piece of plywood was placed on top of the hole.
The tenants say that they asked for rent relief which was declined. The tenants preference would have otherwise been to work with the landlord and stay in this house.
The tenants determined they could no longer live in the house given the hole in the floor, and the mould, so found another tenancy to move to.
The tenants seek compensation because they needed to incur additional costs, and pay additional rent for the next premises they rented.
The tenants seek compensation for ten weeks of rent from when the floor collapsed ($9,000.00), and reduced rent for the 35 weeks since they first notified the agent about the tile falling, and when it fell through completely. Even when the floor had not collapsed, it affected their use of the premises, further they had problems using the doors. The tenants further seek $630.00 for moving costs incurred moving to the next premises. The tenants seek compensation for damage to furniture and general damages for emotional distress and inconvenience.
The tenants seek exemplary damage from the landlord for failure to maintain the premises.
The tenants dispute that there was any assessment of the premises in December 2022 as the landlord claims. The tenants also dispute that they failed to engage with the landlord. The tenants confirm that an insurance assessor did come to the premises around May or June 2023. However, the tenants confirm that a ‘CCTV’ inspection occurred on or around 27 March 2023, but they were there to inspect the drains.
The tenants dispute that where were uncommunicative or open to being home for the inspections.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord is represented by Global Property Limited. It was submitted that any order should be made against the landlord, not the agent.
The agent states that when issues were raised by the tenants, the owner was notified of those issues.
The landlord agrees that the issue with the floor was first raised with the floor in November 2022. The landlord considers that the tenants did not respond to emails about inspections, but says that a quotation was obtained from a tradesperson who went to the property in November 2022 and provided a quotation to the owner (I have not been provided with that quotation).
Mr Dai confirmed that a CCTV inspection was arranged but advised he was not certain whether that was for the drains or the floor, as it was arranged by the landlord (owner).

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court 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.
The District Court has confirmed in the appeal of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, that exemplary damages under the RTA are ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately.

ANALYSIS

This matter returns to the Tribunal by way of a rehearing granted. As I explained to the parties at the hearing today, that means I must consider the claim afresh. I do not take into consideration the conclusions reached by the earlier adjudicator, the outcome from the hearing today may be the same, similar, or entirely different.
The background has been set out in detail above, but what the background shows is that the tenants first notified the landlord of a collapsed portion of the dining room floor on 14 November 2022, then there was a collapsing of that area of floor notified on 15 May 2023, but the landlord did not have any sort of repair undertaken, until 24 June 2023. Even then, it was not a permanent repair, it was a small sheet of plywood glued over the hole, in order to cover the open area into the subfloor space.
What the emails between the parties confirms, is that the tenants did precisely what they needed to do 1 , that was notify the landlord of repairs that were required at the premises, but the landlord failed to act on that notice in any reasonable way.
After being advised of the depressed portion of the flooring, and the difficulties with opening the doors, in my view a reasonable landlord would have had a suitably qualified contractor at the premises, within a week or two at the most. That did not happen.
What aggravates the situation is that even over the course of time, the tenants provided the landlord with reminders, and described a worsening state at the premises, with further areas of flooring collapsing in the dining room, and the other doors not opening, but again the landlord did not act responsibly with that. It seems likely that the landlord did arrange for an inspection of drainage, which was sensible to address any underlying drainage issues, but it did not address the issues with the floor or doors.
I have no reservation in concluding that the landlord failed to comply with its obligation under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, which requires that the landlord: 1 Section 40(1)(d) requires the tenants to notify the landlord as soon as possible of the need for repairs, the tenants did that. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
I will now consider the tenant’s claims for compensation, general damages, and exemplary damages. Compensation claim
The tenant seek compensation for their losses. Compensation is an amount of money ordered that compensates a person for a loss they have incurred, because of a breach on the part of another party.
The tenants seek: a. $9,000.00 compensation for ten weeks of rent from when the floor collapsed (full rent reimbursement) b. $15,750.00 compensation for the 35 weeks since they notified of the issue with the tile, as they could not fully enjoy the tenancy (half rent reimbursement). c. General damages. d. $638.00 for moving costs. e. $1,000.00 for damage to furniture from mould.
I accept the evidence from the tenants, that the use of the premises was considerably reduced, when the floor in the dining room collapsed. There was a hole in the floor, and I accept that caused draft and likely moisture issues in the premises. Obviously the tenants would have been unable to use that portion of the dining room, but I also accept that there were no internal doors so there was an impact to the use of the lower floor which included the lounge, kitchen and family room.
It is important to remember that the tenants were paying rent to the landlord, to have a warm dry house, without holes in the floor. They were not receiving that, and the loss is the rental they paid, in relation to what they were not receiving.
I do not consider it reasonable to order a full rent reimbursement, because obviously, the tenants had some use of the premises, such as for example their bedrooms and other rooms on the second floor. The tenants would have had some use of the rooms downstairs, but that would be diminished. I also accept there were difficulties accessing the patio area, because doors would not open.
Taking those factors into consideration, I consider it would be reasonable to compensate the tenants for 25% of the rent paid from 15 May 2023. While the landlord did make a temporary repair on 24 June 2023, that did not address the range of issues that the tenants had arising from the defects with the premises. It is reasonable that this level of compensation be paid until the end of the tenancy which was 18 July 2023, being 9 weeks. Therefore this compensation is $2,025.00.
I further consider that the tenants should be provided compensation for the issues with the floor and doors, after it was first notified on 14 November 2022. The tenants were obviously less impacted than when the floor had collapsed, but the tenant still had a restricted use of the premises, which would have been resolved had the landlord repaired the defects straight away. Between 14 November 2022, and 14 May 2023 was some 25 weeks. I consider compensation of $50.00 per week over that period would be reasonable, so order the landlord to pay compensation of $1,250.00.
I declined to order moving costs. I accept that the tenants moved early because of the defects with the premises, but I cannot see that they have incurred a loss. Whether they pay moving costs in July 2023, or at a subsequent time when they decided to move out, those costs would have been incurred one way or the other. That claim is declined.
I also declined the claim for compensation for furniture damage, because there is insufficient evidence to establish the loss. I have not received any evidence in relation to the furniture at all.
The end result is that I order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenants of $3,275.00. General damages
General damages are awards similar to compensation in that it requires the payment of money to make right a breach, but it is not an order made to compensate for loss, but to compensate for an absence of mental satisfaction of an agreement.
In this case I consider that general damages should be ordered. I accept that there has been considerable inconvenience arising for the tenants. I accept that they needed to repeatedly follow up with the landlord to get work done, but in reality, the work was never done by the time the tenants left the premises. I accept there was a measure of distress that arose from having the hole in the floor, and I also accept that the premises would have been damper and more prone to mould because of the situation with the floor. I consider an order of $500.00 of general damages would be fair in the circumstances. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
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.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
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 maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of section 45 (landlords obligations around maintenance), is $7,200.00
Taking the section 109 factors into account, I have determined that exemplary damages should be awarded for these reasons. a. I consider that the landlords actions were most likely to be intentional. The landlord was very well aware of the difficulties with the tenancy, that was raised by the tenants early, and despite regular reminders, the landlord failed to act. In fact even following a 14 day notice in June, the landlord still had not repaired the issues. The landlord was represented by a professional property manager, and it is very likely that the property manager was aware of the landlord’s obligations to maintain the premises. b. The effect of the unlawful act was significant for these tenants. They lived in premises that were unhealthy, and unsafe. They had a significant degree of inconvenience in needing to repeatedly raise the issues with the landlord, and in the restrictions around use of the premises. The tenants needed to put up with 35 weeks of an escalation of the deterioration at the tenancy. c. There are strong interests for tenants in having premises properly maintained and repaired, that is especially the situation when there are health and safety implications as is the case here. d. There is also a strong public interest that landlords maintain and repair tenancies, so that tenants live in safe, warm and healthy dwellings. Making an order of exemplary damages would be in the public interest. e. In the circumstances of this case, it would be just to order exemplary damages to be paid, given the level of the breach and the impact for the tenants.
The question then is the level of exemplary damages to award. I consider an order at 50% of the maximum would be indicated, being $3,600.00 and that is ordered.

FILING FEE

The applicants have been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenants have been substantially successful. The tenants seek name suppression so that is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720825 — Exemplary damages at 17 John Rymer Place, Kohimarama, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720825 — Exemplary damages at 17 John Rymer Place, Kohimarama, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions