How much money was awarded in case 4736270?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4736270?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Exemplary damages, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4736270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10061809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4736270?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4736270?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Exemplary damages, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4736270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10061809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Published tribunal order

Tenancy Tribunal case 4736270 — State of repair

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4736270 about?

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

Decided 8 Mar 2024 · Published 8 Mar 2024 · Application 4736270

State of repair
Leaks
Exemplary damages
Healthy homes

Party names are redacted in the official published order.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
Ihome Property Management Limited Xiaobo Gong must pay the tenants $15,070.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
During the 22 February 2024 hearing, the Landlord raised the fact the tenants were in $2,020.00 of rent arrears to 22 February 2024. If the tenants have not paid these rent arrears, the landlord may deduct these rent arrears and any additional rent arrears accrued by the tenants between 22 February 2024 and 8 March 2024.
The tenants must return to paying the contractual $760.00 rent per week from the date of this Order, unless the landlord fails to immediately pay the total amount payable outlined in paragraph 2 above, minus any rent arrears owing.
If the landlord does not immediately pay the total amount payable set out in paragraph 2 above, minus any rent arrears owing, the tenants shall not pay rent until the full amount owing to them by the landlord has been repaid.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for work orders for replacement of broken/cracked glass in three windows and repair of 3 broken window hinges and a professional certified contractor to repair the sewage system, reimbursement of the filing fee, a restraining order on the owners and compensation and/or exemplary damages for: a. The landlord’s breaches of the healthy home standards, including having blocked sewage and drains that have overflowed under the house and all over the backyard and pathway; b. The landlord’s failure to provide healthy homes standards information in the tenancy agreement; c. The landlord’s failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically in relation to the windows, sewage leaks and water leaks; and d. The landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Work Order
At the hearing, the tenants gave evidence that the broken/cracked glass in three windows, 3 broken window hinges and the sewage/drainage system had all been fixed and that the tenants no longer required any work orders from the Tribunal. I dismiss this claim accordingly. Failure to maintain
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, a landlord must also provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Breaching either of these s45 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Windows and window hinges
The tenants gave evidence that they had informed the property manager, around March 2023, of a broken/cracked glass in three windows, 3 broken window hinges and some rotten window frames that needed repair. These windows were letting draft into the house and could not be opened and closed.
The tenants produced an email to the property manager dated 7 Jun 2023, that confirms the property manager had told them 2 months prior that the owners needed to get a factory to make up new frames and that there was a delay in the manufacture of these. The tenants confirmed to the Tribunal that they had found that odd as the window frames were wooden and not aluminium. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 may 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
In November 2023, there are a series of text messages produced in evidence by the tenants that show that 17 days after they had issued the landlord the 14 days’ notice (26 October 2023) the window, frames and hinges had still not been fixed. These text messages also record the tenants stating they have made over 30 emails and calls on this issue.
This issue was not resolved until around mid-November 2023.
The tenants notified the landlord as soon as possible after their discovery of the need to repair the windows, frames and hinges. These were not latent or unforeseeable defects in the property or unobservable defects that were discovered by the tenants before any damage occurred. They were defects that were causing drafts in the premises and creating inconvenience and a loss of amenity to the tenants, as some of the windows were not able to be opened and closed until they had been repaired.
The landlord knew about the need for these repairs for 7 months by the time the repairs were carried out and they were not carried out until more than 14 days after the tenants issued the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy.
The tenants gave evidence that when the builder came to fix the window frames, he did so on the spot with no pre-ordered new window frames.
I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to repair and maintain the windows, frames and hinges in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord knew windows, frames and hinges were in need of repair for 7 months and failed to have them repaired in a reasonable timeframe; b. the tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with the loss of the amenity and of having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 7 months; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Sewage
The tenants gave evidence: a. In early March 2023, they noticed a large amount of sewage on the back lawn and two drains overflowing with raw sewage, near the kitchen and below the bathroom window. They raised this issue with the property manager. b. On 13 March 2023, the first plumber was engaged by the landlord to investigate and address the sewage issue. The plumber spoke little if any English, but appeared to the tenants to have come to investigate the sewage line that was blocked and had resulted in large amounts of raw sewage and toilet paper on the back lawn, the drains near the kitchen and below the bathroom window, the pathway to the house and the driveway. In reply to this, the property manager gave evidence that the plumber had found a woman’s sanity pad in the drain and that it was the tenants fault the drain blocked as the system is not designed to flush these types of items down. The tenants denied that they ever flushed sanitary pads down the toilet but were made to pay for the plumbers visit by the landlord as the plumber had insisted the blockage was the tenants’ fault. c. A few days after the plumber had moved the raw sewage from the drains to further down the back yard, the drains under the kitchen window and below the bathroom began to overflow with raw sewage and toilet paper again. d. The tenants called the property manager as the stench was unbearable to them and their health was at risk as the raw sewage was all over the back yard, pathway and driveway and they had to use these common areas to get in and out of the premises. They asked the property manager to get a biohazard clean done of the back yard and access ways as well as the blocked sewage system fixed immediately. She did nothing. e. In early April 2023, out of desperation, the tenants called a plumber from PlumbQuick themselves to investigate the issue and give them a quote to fix the sewage/drainage issues. f. On 4 April 2023, the tenants informed the property manager they had engaged someone to investigate the issue, they wanted a new and more professional plumber to do the job and they were getting a quote from PlumbQuick. g. On 5 April 2023, the tenants sent the property manager the drain unblocking quote from PlumbQuick for $2,792.82. PlumbQuick had investigated the issue on site and had identified that there were at least two breaks/blocks in the drainage system causing the raw sewage to overflow in the drains and onto the lawn, pathway and driveway. One was close to the kitchen, and one was in the water pipe by the fence. h. O 6 April 2023, the tenants paid PlumbQuick to unblock the drain again while they waited for the owners to approve the work to remedy the situation more fully. i. On 11 April 2023, the tenants sent the property manager the plumber’s picture with two points marked on it from PlumbQuick and requested that they be reimbursed for the $287.50 they had paid for the drain to be unblocked in early April 2023. j. On 12 April 2023, the property manager asked the tenants to obtain the CCTV investigative footage from PlumbQuick but did not give them a reason for the request. k. On 13 April 2023, the property manager informed the tenants that the owner wanted to get his own contractor in to fix the drainage system as he can save money and asked the tenants again for the CCTV footage from PlumbQuick, so his contractor would know where the breaks/blockages were located. The property manager also complained about the length of the lawns and asked the tenants to cut the raw sewage-soaked lawns. When the tenants refuse to do the lawns until the drainage system is fixed and the lawns have been decontaminated, the property manager informed the tenants she would engage contractor to do the lawns at the tenant’s expense. l. On 14 April 2023, the tenants inform the property manager that PlumbQuick only use the CCTV footage for investigation and viewing purposes only and don’t retain it once they know they will not be undertaking the job. m. On 17 April 2023, the property manager informed the tenant that the drainage system had been fixed and the lawn cleaned so the tenants could mow the lawn. The owners had moved the raw sewage off the lawn and pathway and dumped it further back in the yard. The pipes were cleaned out, but the paths and driveway were not cleaned and they remained covered in sewage. The pungent smell was still evident to the tenants and the drainage system did not appear to be any better than before. In reply, the property manager told the Tribunal that Dong Construction Ltd came and fixed the broken pipes on 16 April 2023, that the owner paid cash for the work and was not provided with an invoice, but they had replaced a piece of the drainage pipe near the driveway that was broken and causing the sewage to back up and overflow. n. For the next 6 months the sewage backed up periodically and the tenants took photographs and sent them to the property manager and continually asked her to engage a qualified professional drainage expert to investigate the issues more fully and remedy the situation as it was an ongoing health hazard that was causing the tenants stress and inconvenience as they were doing all they could not to stop the drains blocking and having the raw sewage overflow. o. Some short-term fixes were undertaken from time to time, such as a Dong Construction coming 5 times to do a hydro flush of the pipes on 17 May, 12 July, 22 September, 28 October and 2 December 2023, but no further work was done on to fix the broken drainage system. p. The tenants contacted Watercare about the issue around 20 September 2023 and they came and pushed the sewage up the line manually to temporarily stop the raw sewage overflow at the property. At the time they informed the tenants that the issue was with the drainage system on the property and that was a private issue the owners needed to address not Watercare. The tenants informed the property manager of this on the same day but still nothing was done to address the significant drainage issue. q. On 28 October 2023, the owners came to the property and cleaned the raw sewage by hand and threw it in the bushes closest to the tenants’ neighbour. They seemed stressed when they arrived unannounced and, in a hurry to clean up the worst of the raw sewage on the ground and the pathway. Shortly after the owners had cleared the worst of the raw sewage, a mandarin speaking plumber arrived and told the tenants they needed a part to place over the lid of the drain. The owners did not want to pay for the lid, so they put two broken roof tiles and a bag over the top of the drain that overflows the most. r. On 1 December 2023, one of the owners emailed one of the tenants asking “Is it ok for us to meet somewhere this weekend and have a talk? Could I have your mobile number so we can communicate more convenient? Or you can call me if convenient”. s. The tenant was surprised to hear from the owner as the owners engage a property manager to manage the property. The tenants have always directed their issues and concerns to the property manager. t. The tenants emailed the property manger and told her that it was 9 months since they first raised the sewage/drain issue and said “As we continue to tell you, we need a real fix for the drains, The current DIY solution has not worked. We once again have sewage overflowing in the property. Photos attached. Please give me a clear plan of action to resolve this and compensate us”. This email has 4 photographic attachments that show an old drain completely clogged with toilet paper and raw sewage, including faeces and the raw sewage all over the ground around the drain as well as pooled in the back yard and caught around old fence posts and other building material left in the yard by the owners. u. On 6 December 2023, the property manager got Pipeline Drainage Company to come and do another hydro flush and to investigate the issue more fully. The company found a builder’s tool in the drainpipe about 25 metres from the property that was causing the blockage. Wastewater was flowing through the blockage, but faeces and toilet paper were getting stuck and backing up the pipe until it overflowed. v. No more hydro flushing had been necessary since 6 December 2023 to the date of the hearing and there had been no more drainage issues.
I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the drainage and sewage systems in a reasonable state of repair from March to December 2023, being a period of 9 months.
The landlord did not begin to investigate, let alone repair the defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. Given the gravity of the problem, the number of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, the problem with its inferior contractors is culpable when it could have hired professional drainage experts much earlier on and resolved the drainage issues in a timelier manner and it has never undertaken any hazardous waste clean up of the property that had been flooded repeatedly with raw sewage, which the landlord had done nothing to address except to move the faeces, toilet paper and contaminated water around other areas of the property. This left the lawns, bushes, pathway and driveway all contaminated with raw waste, even after the repair.
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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew of the need to repair for 9 months and the need for repair was apparent from the landlord’s observation each time it went to the premises and saw blocked and overflowing drains filed with raw sewage and failed to have the drainage system repaired in a reasonable timeframe. When the landlord did get contractors out to investigate and repair it was only to unblock the drains and flush them. Not enough was done to identify and successfully repair the issues; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with living with the pungent odour of raw sewage and the health risks that came with having to walk through raw sewage as they came through the property each day to get into the house. In addition, they had the stress of having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and health risks they lived with for 7 months; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $4,800.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Water leaks
The tenants gave evidence that: a. Their tenancy started on 20 January 2022. b. In February 2022, the tenants first raised their concerns that the property had clear water leaks, as there was water under the house and their water usage seemed very high in comparison to what they had been paying at their previous tenancy. c. The tenants raised their concerns again repeatedly through February and March 2022 and nothing was done to investigate their concerns about the clear water leak. d. On 7 June 2023, the tenants followed up with the property manager again and informed her their water usage in February to May 2022 was too high and they wanted the leak investigated. e. The property manager informed the tenants she had just had a plumber to the property, and he had fixed a leak in the kitchen that was causing excess water to flow out of the property. She also informed them that she had been told by the plumber that the kitchen leak was not big enough to have resulted in the excess water rates bills they were complaining of. The property manager told the tenants to wait another month and if the water bill was still too high, she would apply for a leak rebate for them. f. In early September 2022, the tenants raised an issue with the landlord that they thought there was a water leak as it was damp under the house and their water bills appeared to be high to them. g. On 8 September 2022, the property manager came to investigate the tenants concerns and conducted a rudimentary test of the water metre and informed the tenants that when no taps were turned on the water metre did not move, for 10 to 15 minutes, therefore there was no leak, and the tenants were required to pay the water rates invoice. h. On 14 September 2022, the tenants asked the property manager if she had received a letter from Watercare as they came to investigate on 5 September 2022 and located a leak that they say is on the private property and the responsibility of the owner to fix. i. The property manager responded the same day reiterating she had been to look at the metre and found no movement of the metre when no one was home, therefore she concluded there were no leaks. j. The tenants responded to the property manager stating that they were concerned that her conclusion and Watercare’s conclusion differed and requested that the landlord send a plumber to carry out test to see if Watercare was correct and there was a water leak somewhere on the premises. k. The property manager did not respond for over a month. l. On 7 October 2022, the tenants contacted the property manager again to follow up their concerns about the leak they still believed needed attention based on what Watercare had told them. They got no response. m. On 21 October 2022, the tenants followed up with the property manager again informing her that their water bills were still too high, and they wanted the leak investigated and remediated. n. On 25 October 2022, the property manager replied informing the tenants she would apply for a leak rebate for them from Watercare. o. On 20 December 2022, the tenants received a text message from the property manager requiring the tenants to pay the outstanding water rates or further action would be taken and went back to the property manager querying what was happening about the leak and the leak rebate application. p. On 6 January 2023, the property manager informs the tenants that she has succeeded in getting them a $60.00 leak rebate for November 2022 and she will review the water rates bill in another month to see if the rebate issue with Watercare needs to be reviewed. The landlord still had not had a plumber investigate the leak, based on the property manager’s rudimentary test confirming to her there was no leak. It did not occur to her that something could be leaking while in use and not when no one was home using the water. q. On 26 April 2023, the tenants emailed the property manager again asking if there was any progress on getting the leaking pipes investigated as they were paying for water for 6 people at 1,200 litres per day, which the tenants said was two times the yearly average over the past 6 months. The tenants also confirmed that the water metre was ticking over when no one was using any water. r. On 20 September 2023, the issue had still not been investigated or remediated. The tenants emailed the property manager informing her that they had Watercare out again and it had confirmed again that there was a serious issue with the drains and the sewage. s. On 21 September 2023, the property manager emailed the tenants to confirm that she had booked a drain service for the following day, but no mention was made of getting the water leak looked at, only the drainage system that had caused 7 raw sewage overflows in the year to date. t. On 26 October 2023, the tenants issued a 14-day notice requiring the landlord to remedy: i. The windows, which the tenants confirm have not been remedied in the 7 months it had been since the landlord had been notified the frames had rotted out; ii. The leaks, which appeared to have been fixed that day, after a plumber was finally arranged by the property manager. The plumber fixed two water leaks under the house, but the tenants later found there was still a leak after this work had been carried out; iii. The high water rates being charged by the landlord while no action was being taken to address the leaks or to chase Watercare for a further leak rebate; iv. The raw sewage all around the property that had still not been remedied, and raising concerns about the owners coming to the property without notice to move the raw sewage all around the property instead of having it removed by professionals; and v. The drains being covered by some old roof tiles and a plastic bag instead of a proper cover. u. On 1 November 2023, the plumber came again and replaced an old leaking clear water pipe, and the tenants had no further water leak issues. v. On the last day of the 14-day notice issued by the tenants, being 8 November 2023, only one of the six issues had been remedied. That was the clear water leak. w. The tenants got a further leak rebate from Watercare of $631.09 sometime in November 2023.
I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the clear water drainage systems in a reasonable state of repair from January 2022 to November 2023, being a period of twenty-two-months to fully address the water leaks raised by the tenants repeatedly.
The landlord did not begin to investigate, let alone repair the defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. Again, the number of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, the problem with its property manager and its inferior contractors is culpable when it could have hired professional plumbers or drainage experts much earlier on and resolved the issues in a timelier manner.
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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew of the need to repair for 22 months, and it failed to take the issue seriously for months, then considered applying for leak rebates for the tenants to be an alternative to getting the pipes fixed. The landlord did not do enough was to identify and successfully repair the issue in a timely manner, despite being told by Watercare that there was a significant leak at the property; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with living with the leaks, being harassed to pay high water rates bills from the start of their tenancy and being put through the stress of having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind them of their obligations under the RTA ; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and increased costs they bore for 22 months; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $3,600.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly.
In addition, I find it reasonable to afford the tenants a rent rebate of $4,400.00 for the loss of amenity they suffer over the 22 months it took to get all the significant repair and maintained issues successfully addressed as well as the additional water rates costs, they incurred over that time. This is a rent rebate of $50 per week for 88 weeks. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord arranged for a plumber to come on 13 March 2023 to investigate the sewage issues at the premises. The tenants gave evidence that: a. The landlord did not give the tenants any notice the plumber was coming; b. The plumber arrived at 6pm on 13 March 2023 and worked at the premises until 10:30pm; c. The plumber appeared to the tenants to have come to investigate the sewage line that was blocked and had resulted in large amounts of raw sewage and toilet paper on the back lawn, the pathway to the house and the driveway; d. They could not communicate with the plumber as he did not speak much, if any English, so could not deny him access to the inside of the house or really ascertain what he was trying to do; e. The plumber insisted on entering the house multiple times, without wearing any protective gear and touching the tenants’ beds and other personal property and walking all through the inside of the premises with raw sewage on his hands and boots; f. The plumber used the tenants spade, broom and their plastic container to collect the raw sewage and move it from one part of the premises to another, but doing nothing to remedy the sewage block; g. The plumber passed things through the windows to the tenants such as power cords, which took raw sewage into the house and above one of the tenant’s beds; and h. At the end of the work, the plumber said to Edward Johnsen “you pay now”. Mr Johnsen called the property manager and was told to pay the plumber cash and the landlord would reimburse him. Mr Johnsen was shocked. He had not been told the plumber was coming, let alone that he would have to pay him immediately and seek reimbursement from the landlord. He had never been asked if he would do this and had not agreed to it. Mr Johnsen commented to the property manager that the plumber had done nothing but move raw sewage from one area of the property to the other and had not arrived in a waste disposal truck, just an ordinary van. He also questioned why the landlord had not informed the tenants a plumber was coming. The property manager responded that she thought the issue was urgent and that the plumber would make arrangements directly with the tenants. No apology was given to the tenants for the unexpected invasion of their privacy and breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premises after a long hard day at work.
The tenants also gave evidence that the owners kept showing up at the property unannounced, often bringing others with them that did not speak English and when confronted about breaching the tenants quite enjoyment they would either lurk around the driveway or just in front of the house or they would yell at the tenants and then leave. The owners turned up announced like this: a. On 9 October 2023, with multiple other people and when asked gave no reason for being there. When they were approached, they became confrontational and starting yelling in another language and then continued moving items around the property and gardening. The tenants produced photographs of a number of people at the property that was date stamped; b. On 20 October 2023, with a small child and lingered around the front of the property without informing the tenants why they were there; c. On 28 October 2023, after the tenants had been told a plumber was coming to clean the drains. The owners arrived prior to the plumber and started hastily moving the raw sewage from one part of the property to another to get it out of sight before the plumber arrived. The tenants produced date stamped photographs of the owners at the property moving the raw sewage; d. On 1 November 2023, and were told to leave by the tenants as they were making the tenants uncomfortable because they were lurking around the driveway. It turned out they were waiting for a plumber that they had arranged and had not given the tenants notice was coming but did not communicate this as the reason they were lingering around the property for such a lengthy period; e. On 5 November 2023, for no appreciable reason, without notice and without conveying a reason to the tenants, the owners lingered around the property for in excess of 30 minutes. The tenants asked the owners to leave and eventually they did, but went to the front of the house and continued looking at the property and making the tenants uncomfortable. The tenants told the owners that if they kept doing this the Police would be called and the owners became hostile.
The property manager sent a plumber to look at a broken hot water cylinder on 19 May 2022. She did not give the tenants notice. The tenants were busy on work video calls at the time and could not let him inside the house. The plumber left but the property manager was upset that the tenants would not let the plumber in.
The landlord stated in its defence that the owners were coming to the property to try to get things done for the tenant or to negotiate a good price with the contractors they were engaging or to pay the contractors the cash they required. Further, the owners said that when asked to leave they did, and they would stand and wait on the path or the driveway or in front of the house.
The tenants stated that the owners had one of the tenant’s mobile phone numbers and could have called to let the tenants know they were coming or why they were at the property so often around 6pm, when the tenants were trying to have dinner, to work in the garden, move sewage around and clean the blocked drains of toilet paper and faeces.
Further, the tenants stated they kept contacting the property manager to tell her how uncomfortable the owners’ constant presence at the property was but she did nothing to stop them.
I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by repeatedly going to the tenants’ home without giving them the courtesy of letting the tenants know they were there, and then getting defensive and aggressive when asked to leave by the tenants. Especially when the landlord was moving raw sewage around the property, using the tenants’ personal property to do so without their consent or agreement, and lingering in the driveway, backyard and at the front of the house when the tenants were at home and wanted some peace and privacy.
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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew the tenants were uncomfortable with them repeatedly coming to the premises uninvited and lingering there or carrying out tasks that they had not informed the tenants they were going to do or even why they were there; b. The tenants felt harassed and like they were under the constant observation of the owners and that the owners were disrespectful of their desire for peace, privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for; c. it is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $3,600.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Restraining order on the owners
[The tenant/s] claims because the landlord has harassed them by going to their home uninvited approximately 20 to 30 times in the past 12 months and has also verbally harassing them, they have applied to the Tribunal for a restraining order on the owners of the property.
It is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make such an order.
The tenants will need to make an application to the District Court if the are seeking a restraining order against the owners of the property. Failure to provide healthy homes standards statement and information in the tenancy agreement.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord included a healthy homes statement of intent in the tenancy agreement, that is signed by the landlord’s agent, but all the healthy homes statement sections of the tenancy agreement have been left blank. The tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premises were healthy homes compliant and whether any exemptions apply to the premises.
I find the landlord has committed 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has used the Tenancy Services template tenancy agreement that contains individual statements for all of the healthy homes standards. It has simply failed to complete any of these healthy homes statement sections of the template agreement but has signed the healthy homes signature section of the tenancy agreement.
The tenants claim the premise does not meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard, in that the storm water and sewage system is blocked, and the water does not soak away of the backyard and there are leaks in the water pipes that have resulted in considerable amounts of ground water pooling under the house.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $150.00 of exemplary damages, because: a. The landlord knew it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise that may not meet moisture ingress and drainage standard, the tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise did not comply with all of the healthy homes standards but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenant that the rental premises meet all of the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its 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 tenants consider 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. 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 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 drainage and sewage systems issues outlined in paragraphs 22 to 34 set out above, the premises could not have complied with moisture ingress and drainage standard required. The premises did not have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, or wastewater including the drains.
I find Ihome Property Management Limited Xiaobo Gong committed an unlawful act by renting out the property after 1 July 2021 when it did not comply with the HHS.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenants with the completed and signed healthy homes statements and/or a healthy homes assessment report. Had the tenants been aware of the significant drainage issues with the property when it first considered entering into the tenancy agreement they may not have chosen to do so. I find it just to require the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages, because: a. The landlord knew it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord is that they took on the tenancy for a premise that they did not know did not meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard and then had to continually ask the landlord to get the premises to the required standard for 22 months; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to meet the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide the premises in a state of repair that meets the healthy homes standards set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.

Ihome Property Management Limited Xiaobo Gong must pay the tenants $15,070.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

During the 22 February 2024 hearing, the Landlord raised the fact the tenants were in $2,020.00 of rent arrears to 22 February 2024. If the tenants have not paid these rent arrears, the landlord may deduct these rent arrears and any additional rent arrears accrued by the tenants between 22 February 2024 and 8 March 2024.

The tenants must return to paying the contractual $760.00 rent per week from the date of this Order, unless the landlord fails to immediately pay the total amount payable outlined in paragraph 2 above, minus any rent arrears owing.

If the landlord does not immediately pay the total amount payable set out in paragraph 2 above, minus any rent arrears owing, the tenants shall not pay rent until the full amount owing to them by the landlord has been repaid.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants have applied for work orders for replacement of broken/cracked glass in three windows and repair of 3 broken window hinges and a professional certified contractor to repair the sewage system, reimbursement of the filing fee, a restraining order on the owners and compensation and/or exemplary damages for: a. The landlord’s breaches of the healthy home standards, including having blocked sewage and drains that have overflowed under the house and all over the backyard and pathway; b. The landlord’s failure to provide healthy homes standards information in the tenancy agreement; c. The landlord’s failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically in relation to the windows, sewage leaks and water leaks; and d. The landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Work Order

At the hearing, the tenants gave evidence that the broken/cracked glass in three windows, 3 broken window hinges and the sewage/drainage system had all been fixed and that the tenants no longer required any work orders from the Tribunal. I dismiss this claim accordingly. Failure to maintain

Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1

There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.

A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .

There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .

Under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, a landlord must also provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

Breaching either of these s45 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.

General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Windows and window hinges

The tenants gave evidence that they had informed the property manager, around March 2023, of a broken/cracked glass in three windows, 3 broken window hinges and some rotten window frames that needed repair. These windows were letting draft into the house and could not be opened and closed.

The tenants produced an email to the property manager dated 7 Jun 2023, that confirms the property manager had told them 2 months prior that the owners needed to get a factory to make up new frames and that there was a delay in the manufacture of these. The tenants confirmed to the Tribunal that they had found that odd as the window frames were wooden and not aluminium. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 may 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].

In November 2023, there are a series of text messages produced in evidence by the tenants that show that 17 days after they had issued the landlord the 14 days’ notice (26 October 2023) the window, frames and hinges had still not been fixed. These text messages also record the tenants stating they have made over 30 emails and calls on this issue.

This issue was not resolved until around mid-November 2023.

The tenants notified the landlord as soon as possible after their discovery of the need to repair the windows, frames and hinges. These were not latent or unforeseeable defects in the property or unobservable defects that were discovered by the tenants before any damage occurred. They were defects that were causing drafts in the premises and creating inconvenience and a loss of amenity to the tenants, as some of the windows were not able to be opened and closed until they had been repaired.

The landlord knew about the need for these repairs for 7 months by the time the repairs were carried out and they were not carried out until more than 14 days after the tenants issued the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy.

The tenants gave evidence that when the builder came to fix the window frames, he did so on the spot with no pre-ordered new window frames.

I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to repair and maintain the windows, frames and hinges in a reasonable state of repair.

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.

I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord knew windows, frames and hinges were in need of repair for 7 months and failed to have them repaired in a reasonable timeframe; b. the tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with the loss of the amenity and of having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 7 months; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.

I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Sewage

The tenants gave evidence: a. In early March 2023, they noticed a large amount of sewage on the back lawn and two drains overflowing with raw sewage, near the kitchen and below the bathroom window. They raised this issue with the property manager. b. On 13 March 2023, the first plumber was engaged by the landlord to investigate and address the sewage issue. The plumber spoke little if any English, but appeared to the tenants to have come to investigate the sewage line that was blocked and had resulted in large amounts of raw sewage and toilet paper on the back lawn, the drains near the kitchen and below the bathroom window, the pathway to the house and the driveway. In reply to this, the property manager gave evidence that the plumber had found a woman’s sanity pad in the drain and that it was the tenants fault the drain blocked as the system is not designed to flush these types of items down. The tenants denied that they ever flushed sanitary pads down the toilet but were made to pay for the plumbers visit by the landlord as the plumber had insisted the blockage was the tenants’ fault. c. A few days after the plumber had moved the raw sewage from the drains to further down the back yard, the drains under the kitchen window and below the bathroom began to overflow with raw sewage and toilet paper again. d. The tenants called the property manager as the stench was unbearable to them and their health was at risk as the raw sewage was all over the back yard, pathway and driveway and they had to use these common areas to get in and out of the premises. They asked the property manager to get a biohazard clean done of the back yard and access ways as well as the blocked sewage system fixed immediately. She did nothing. e. In early April 2023, out of desperation, the tenants called a plumber from PlumbQuick themselves to investigate the issue and give them a quote to fix the sewage/drainage issues. f. On 4 April 2023, the tenants informed the property manager they had engaged someone to investigate the issue, they wanted a new and more professional plumber to do the job and they were getting a quote from PlumbQuick. g. On 5 April 2023, the tenants sent the property manager the drain unblocking quote from PlumbQuick for $2,792.82. PlumbQuick had investigated the issue on site and had identified that there were at least two breaks/blocks in the drainage system causing the raw sewage to overflow in the drains and onto the lawn, pathway and driveway. One was close to the kitchen, and one was in the water pipe by the fence. h. O 6 April 2023, the tenants paid PlumbQuick to unblock the drain again while they waited for the owners to approve the work to remedy the situation more fully. i. On 11 April 2023, the tenants sent the property manager the plumber’s picture with two points marked on it from PlumbQuick and requested that they be reimbursed for the $287.50 they had paid for the drain to be unblocked in early April 2023. j. On 12 April 2023, the property manager asked the tenants to obtain the CCTV investigative footage from PlumbQuick but did not give them a reason for the request. k. On 13 April 2023, the property manager informed the tenants that the owner wanted to get his own contractor in to fix the drainage system as he can save money and asked the tenants again for the CCTV footage from PlumbQuick, so his contractor would know where the breaks/blockages were located. The property manager also complained about the length of the lawns and asked the tenants to cut the raw sewage-soaked lawns. When the tenants refuse to do the lawns until the drainage system is fixed and the lawns have been decontaminated, the property manager informed the tenants she would engage contractor to do the lawns at the tenant’s expense. l. On 14 April 2023, the tenants inform the property manager that PlumbQuick only use the CCTV footage for investigation and viewing purposes only and don’t retain it once they know they will not be undertaking the job. m. On 17 April 2023, the property manager informed the tenant that the drainage system had been fixed and the lawn cleaned so the tenants could mow the lawn. The owners had moved the raw sewage off the lawn and pathway and dumped it further back in the yard. The pipes were cleaned out, but the paths and driveway were not cleaned and they remained covered in sewage. The pungent smell was still evident to the tenants and the drainage system did not appear to be any better than before. In reply, the property manager told the Tribunal that Dong Construction Ltd came and fixed the broken pipes on 16 April 2023, that the owner paid cash for the work and was not provided with an invoice, but they had replaced a piece of the drainage pipe near the driveway that was broken and causing the sewage to back up and overflow. n. For the next 6 months the sewage backed up periodically and the tenants took photographs and sent them to the property manager and continually asked her to engage a qualified professional drainage expert to investigate the issues more fully and remedy the situation as it was an ongoing health hazard that was causing the tenants stress and inconvenience as they were doing all they could not to stop the drains blocking and having the raw sewage overflow. o. Some short-term fixes were undertaken from time to time, such as a Dong Construction coming 5 times to do a hydro flush of the pipes on 17 May, 12 July, 22 September, 28 October and 2 December 2023, but no further work was done on to fix the broken drainage system. p. The tenants contacted Watercare about the issue around 20 September 2023 and they came and pushed the sewage up the line manually to temporarily stop the raw sewage overflow at the property. At the time they informed the tenants that the issue was with the drainage system on the property and that was a private issue the owners needed to address not Watercare. The tenants informed the property manager of this on the same day but still nothing was done to address the significant drainage issue. q. On 28 October 2023, the owners came to the property and cleaned the raw sewage by hand and threw it in the bushes closest to the tenants’ neighbour. They seemed stressed when they arrived unannounced and, in a hurry to clean up the worst of the raw sewage on the ground and the pathway. Shortly after the owners had cleared the worst of the raw sewage, a mandarin speaking plumber arrived and told the tenants they needed a part to place over the lid of the drain. The owners did not want to pay for the lid, so they put two broken roof tiles and a bag over the top of the drain that overflows the most. r. On 1 December 2023, one of the owners emailed one of the tenants asking “Is it ok for us to meet somewhere this weekend and have a talk? Could I have your mobile number so we can communicate more convenient? Or you can call me if convenient”. s. The tenant was surprised to hear from the owner as the owners engage a property manager to manage the property. The tenants have always directed their issues and concerns to the property manager. t. The tenants emailed the property manger and told her that it was 9 months since they first raised the sewage/drain issue and said “As we continue to tell you, we need a real fix for the drains, The current DIY solution has not worked. We once again have sewage overflowing in the property. Photos attached. Please give me a clear plan of action to resolve this and compensate us”. This email has 4 photographic attachments that show an old drain completely clogged with toilet paper and raw sewage, including faeces and the raw sewage all over the ground around the drain as well as pooled in the back yard and caught around old fence posts and other building material left in the yard by the owners. u. On 6 December 2023, the property manager got Pipeline Drainage Company to come and do another hydro flush and to investigate the issue more fully. The company found a builder’s tool in the drainpipe about 25 metres from the property that was causing the blockage. Wastewater was flowing through the blockage, but faeces and toilet paper were getting stuck and backing up the pipe until it overflowed. v. No more hydro flushing had been necessary since 6 December 2023 to the date of the hearing and there had been no more drainage issues.

I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the drainage and sewage systems in a reasonable state of repair from March to December 2023, being a period of 9 months.

The landlord did not begin to investigate, let alone repair the defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. Given the gravity of the problem, the number of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, the problem with its inferior contractors is culpable when it could have hired professional drainage experts much earlier on and resolved the drainage issues in a timelier manner and it has never undertaken any hazardous waste clean up of the property that had been flooded repeatedly with raw sewage, which the landlord had done nothing to address except to move the faeces, toilet paper and contaminated water around other areas of the property. This left the lawns, bushes, pathway and driveway all contaminated with raw waste, even after the repair.

I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew of the need to repair for 9 months and the need for repair was apparent from the landlord’s observation each time it went to the premises and saw blocked and overflowing drains filed with raw sewage and failed to have the drainage system repaired in a reasonable timeframe. When the landlord did get contractors out to investigate and repair it was only to unblock the drains and flush them. Not enough was done to identify and successfully repair the issues; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with living with the pungent odour of raw sewage and the health risks that came with having to walk through raw sewage as they came through the property each day to get into the house. In addition, they had the stress of having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and health risks they lived with for 7 months; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.

I make an order for the landlord to pay $4,800.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Water leaks

The tenants gave evidence that: a. Their tenancy started on 20 January 2022. b. In February 2022, the tenants first raised their concerns that the property had clear water leaks, as there was water under the house and their water usage seemed very high in comparison to what they had been paying at their previous tenancy. c. The tenants raised their concerns again repeatedly through February and March 2022 and nothing was done to investigate their concerns about the clear water leak. d. On 7 June 2023, the tenants followed up with the property manager again and informed her their water usage in February to May 2022 was too high and they wanted the leak investigated. e. The property manager informed the tenants she had just had a plumber to the property, and he had fixed a leak in the kitchen that was causing excess water to flow out of the property. She also informed them that she had been told by the plumber that the kitchen leak was not big enough to have resulted in the excess water rates bills they were complaining of. The property manager told the tenants to wait another month and if the water bill was still too high, she would apply for a leak rebate for them. f. In early September 2022, the tenants raised an issue with the landlord that they thought there was a water leak as it was damp under the house and their water bills appeared to be high to them. g. On 8 September 2022, the property manager came to investigate the tenants concerns and conducted a rudimentary test of the water metre and informed the tenants that when no taps were turned on the water metre did not move, for 10 to 15 minutes, therefore there was no leak, and the tenants were required to pay the water rates invoice. h. On 14 September 2022, the tenants asked the property manager if she had received a letter from Watercare as they came to investigate on 5 September 2022 and located a leak that they say is on the private property and the responsibility of the owner to fix. i. The property manager responded the same day reiterating she had been to look at the metre and found no movement of the metre when no one was home, therefore she concluded there were no leaks. j. The tenants responded to the property manager stating that they were concerned that her conclusion and Watercare’s conclusion differed and requested that the landlord send a plumber to carry out test to see if Watercare was correct and there was a water leak somewhere on the premises. k. The property manager did not respond for over a month. l. On 7 October 2022, the tenants contacted the property manager again to follow up their concerns about the leak they still believed needed attention based on what Watercare had told them. They got no response. m. On 21 October 2022, the tenants followed up with the property manager again informing her that their water bills were still too high, and they wanted the leak investigated and remediated. n. On 25 October 2022, the property manager replied informing the tenants she would apply for a leak rebate for them from Watercare. o. On 20 December 2022, the tenants received a text message from the property manager requiring the tenants to pay the outstanding water rates or further action would be taken and went back to the property manager querying what was happening about the leak and the leak rebate application. p. On 6 January 2023, the property manager informs the tenants that she has succeeded in getting them a $60.00 leak rebate for November 2022 and she will review the water rates bill in another month to see if the rebate issue with Watercare needs to be reviewed. The landlord still had not had a plumber investigate the leak, based on the property manager’s rudimentary test confirming to her there was no leak. It did not occur to her that something could be leaking while in use and not when no one was home using the water. q. On 26 April 2023, the tenants emailed the property manager again asking if there was any progress on getting the leaking pipes investigated as they were paying for water for 6 people at 1,200 litres per day, which the tenants said was two times the yearly average over the past 6 months. The tenants also confirmed that the water metre was ticking over when no one was using any water. r. On 20 September 2023, the issue had still not been investigated or remediated. The tenants emailed the property manager informing her that they had Watercare out again and it had confirmed again that there was a serious issue with the drains and the sewage. s. On 21 September 2023, the property manager emailed the tenants to confirm that she had booked a drain service for the following day, but no mention was made of getting the water leak looked at, only the drainage system that had caused 7 raw sewage overflows in the year to date. t. On 26 October 2023, the tenants issued a 14-day notice requiring the landlord to remedy: i. The windows, which the tenants confirm have not been remedied in the 7 months it had been since the landlord had been notified the frames had rotted out; ii. The leaks, which appeared to have been fixed that day, after a plumber was finally arranged by the property manager. The plumber fixed two water leaks under the house, but the tenants later found there was still a leak after this work had been carried out; iii. The high water rates being charged by the landlord while no action was being taken to address the leaks or to chase Watercare for a further leak rebate; iv. The raw sewage all around the property that had still not been remedied, and raising concerns about the owners coming to the property without notice to move the raw sewage all around the property instead of having it removed by professionals; and v. The drains being covered by some old roof tiles and a plastic bag instead of a proper cover. u. On 1 November 2023, the plumber came again and replaced an old leaking clear water pipe, and the tenants had no further water leak issues. v. On the last day of the 14-day notice issued by the tenants, being 8 November 2023, only one of the six issues had been remedied. That was the clear water leak. w. The tenants got a further leak rebate from Watercare of $631.09 sometime in November 2023.

I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the clear water drainage systems in a reasonable state of repair from January 2022 to November 2023, being a period of twenty-two-months to fully address the water leaks raised by the tenants repeatedly.

The landlord did not begin to investigate, let alone repair the defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. Again, the number of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, the problem with its property manager and its inferior contractors is culpable when it could have hired professional plumbers or drainage experts much earlier on and resolved the issues in a timelier manner.

I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew of the need to repair for 22 months, and it failed to take the issue seriously for months, then considered applying for leak rebates for the tenants to be an alternative to getting the pipes fixed. The landlord did not do enough was to identify and successfully repair the issue in a timely manner, despite being told by Watercare that there was a significant leak at the property; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with living with the leaks, being harassed to pay high water rates bills from the start of their tenancy and being put through the stress of having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind them of their obligations under the RTA ; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and increased costs they bore for 22 months; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.

I make an order for the landlord to pay $3,600.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly.

In addition, I find it reasonable to afford the tenants a rent rebate of $4,400.00 for the loss of amenity they suffer over the 22 months it took to get all the significant repair and maintained issues successfully addressed as well as the additional water rates costs, they incurred over that time. This is a rent rebate of $50 per week for 88 weeks. Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The landlord arranged for a plumber to come on 13 March 2023 to investigate the sewage issues at the premises. The tenants gave evidence that: a. The landlord did not give the tenants any notice the plumber was coming; b. The plumber arrived at 6pm on 13 March 2023 and worked at the premises until 10:30pm; c. The plumber appeared to the tenants to have come to investigate the sewage line that was blocked and had resulted in large amounts of raw sewage and toilet paper on the back lawn, the pathway to the house and the driveway; d. They could not communicate with the plumber as he did not speak much, if any English, so could not deny him access to the inside of the house or really ascertain what he was trying to do; e. The plumber insisted on entering the house multiple times, without wearing any protective gear and touching the tenants’ beds and other personal property and walking all through the inside of the premises with raw sewage on his hands and boots; f. The plumber used the tenants spade, broom and their plastic container to collect the raw sewage and move it from one part of the premises to another, but doing nothing to remedy the sewage block; g. The plumber passed things through the windows to the tenants such as power cords, which took raw sewage into the house and above one of the tenant’s beds; and h. At the end of the work, the plumber said to Edward Johnsen “you pay now”. Mr Johnsen called the property manager and was told to pay the plumber cash and the landlord would reimburse him. Mr Johnsen was shocked. He had not been told the plumber was coming, let alone that he would have to pay him immediately and seek reimbursement from the landlord. He had never been asked if he would do this and had not agreed to it. Mr Johnsen commented to the property manager that the plumber had done nothing but move raw sewage from one area of the property to the other and had not arrived in a waste disposal truck, just an ordinary van. He also questioned why the landlord had not informed the tenants a plumber was coming. The property manager responded that she thought the issue was urgent and that the plumber would make arrangements directly with the tenants. No apology was given to the tenants for the unexpected invasion of their privacy and breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premises after a long hard day at work.

The tenants also gave evidence that the owners kept showing up at the property unannounced, often bringing others with them that did not speak English and when confronted about breaching the tenants quite enjoyment they would either lurk around the driveway or just in front of the house or they would yell at the tenants and then leave. The owners turned up announced like this: a. On 9 October 2023, with multiple other people and when asked gave no reason for being there. When they were approached, they became confrontational and starting yelling in another language and then continued moving items around the property and gardening. The tenants produced photographs of a number of people at the property that was date stamped; b. On 20 October 2023, with a small child and lingered around the front of the property without informing the tenants why they were there; c. On 28 October 2023, after the tenants had been told a plumber was coming to clean the drains. The owners arrived prior to the plumber and started hastily moving the raw sewage from one part of the property to another to get it out of sight before the plumber arrived. The tenants produced date stamped photographs of the owners at the property moving the raw sewage; d. On 1 November 2023, and were told to leave by the tenants as they were making the tenants uncomfortable because they were lurking around the driveway. It turned out they were waiting for a plumber that they had arranged and had not given the tenants notice was coming but did not communicate this as the reason they were lingering around the property for such a lengthy period; e. On 5 November 2023, for no appreciable reason, without notice and without conveying a reason to the tenants, the owners lingered around the property for in excess of 30 minutes. The tenants asked the owners to leave and eventually they did, but went to the front of the house and continued looking at the property and making the tenants uncomfortable. The tenants told the owners that if they kept doing this the Police would be called and the owners became hostile.

The property manager sent a plumber to look at a broken hot water cylinder on 19 May 2022. She did not give the tenants notice. The tenants were busy on work video calls at the time and could not let him inside the house. The plumber left but the property manager was upset that the tenants would not let the plumber in.

The landlord stated in its defence that the owners were coming to the property to try to get things done for the tenant or to negotiate a good price with the contractors they were engaging or to pay the contractors the cash they required. Further, the owners said that when asked to leave they did, and they would stand and wait on the path or the driveway or in front of the house.

The tenants stated that the owners had one of the tenant’s mobile phone numbers and could have called to let the tenants know they were coming or why they were at the property so often around 6pm, when the tenants were trying to have dinner, to work in the garden, move sewage around and clean the blocked drains of toilet paper and faeces.

Further, the tenants stated they kept contacting the property manager to tell her how uncomfortable the owners’ constant presence at the property was but she did nothing to stop them.

I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by repeatedly going to the tenants’ home without giving them the courtesy of letting the tenants know they were there, and then getting defensive and aggressive when asked to leave by the tenants. Especially when the landlord was moving raw sewage around the property, using the tenants’ personal property to do so without their consent or agreement, and lingering in the driveway, backyard and at the front of the house when the tenants were at home and wanted some peace and privacy.

I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew the tenants were uncomfortable with them repeatedly coming to the premises uninvited and lingering there or carrying out tasks that they had not informed the tenants they were going to do or even why they were there; b. The tenants felt harassed and like they were under the constant observation of the owners and that the owners were disrespectful of their desire for peace, privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for; c. it is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.

I make an order for the landlord to pay $3,600.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Restraining order on the owners

[The tenant/s] claims because the landlord has harassed them by going to their home uninvited approximately 20 to 30 times in the past 12 months and has also verbally harassing them, they have applied to the Tribunal for a restraining order on the owners of the property.

It is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make such an order.

The tenants will need to make an application to the District Court if the are seeking a restraining order against the owners of the property. Failure to provide healthy homes standards statement and information in the tenancy agreement.

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.

The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.

Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord included a healthy homes statement of intent in the tenancy agreement, that is signed by the landlord’s agent, but all the healthy homes statement sections of the tenancy agreement have been left blank. The tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premises were healthy homes compliant and whether any exemptions apply to the premises.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The landlord has used the Tenancy Services template tenancy agreement that contains individual statements for all of the healthy homes standards. It has simply failed to complete any of these healthy homes statement sections of the template agreement but has signed the healthy homes signature section of the tenancy agreement.

The tenants claim the premise does not meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard, in that the storm water and sewage system is blocked, and the water does not soak away of the backyard and there are leaks in the water pipes that have resulted in considerable amounts of ground water pooling under the house.

I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $150.00 of exemplary damages, because: a. The landlord knew it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise that may not meet moisture ingress and drainage standard, the tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise did not comply with all of the healthy homes standards but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenant that the rental premises meet all of the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Healthy Homes Standards

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its 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 tenants consider 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. 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 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 drainage and sewage systems issues outlined in paragraphs 22 to 34 set out above, the premises could not have complied with moisture ingress and drainage standard required. The premises did not have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, or wastewater including the drains.

I find Ihome Property Management Limited Xiaobo Gong committed an unlawful act by renting out the property after 1 July 2021 when it did not comply with the HHS.

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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenants with the completed and signed healthy homes statements and/or a healthy homes assessment report. Had the tenants been aware of the significant drainage issues with the property when it first considered entering into the tenancy agreement they may not have chosen to do so. I find it just to require the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages, because: a. The landlord knew it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord is that they took on the tenancy for a premise that they did not know did not meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard and then had to continually ask the landlord to get the premises to the required standard for 22 months; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to meet the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide the premises in a state of repair that meets the healthy homes standards set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.