What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758177 about?

The tribunal order states: Peter John Judge and Annie Hall-Judge must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44

How much money was awarded in case 4758177?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758177?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10245089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758177 about?

The tribunal order states: Peter John Judge and Annie Hall-Judge must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44

How much money was awarded in case 4758177?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758177?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10245089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758177 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4758177 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Peter John Judge and Annie Hall-Judge must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The landlord’s application is withdrawn.

The tenant’s application for a declaration that the landlord’s termination notice was retaliatory is withdrawn.

The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Judge represented the landlord.

The landlord sought a possession order. The tenancy has now ended, and the landlord has possession. Mr Judge withdrew the application as events have overtaken it.

The parties earlier attended mediation and as a result the bond has been paid to the tenant in full.

The tenant accepted that the landlord required the premises for use by their son/stepson who has a disability following an accident. The tenant withdrew his application for a declaration that the landlord’s termination notice was a retaliatory notice; he accepted that the notice was genuinely given. Issues

The remaining issues on the tenant’s application are: •Were the premises Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant? If not, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Should the tenant be awarded compensation for a loss of enjoyment, and inconvenience, following the [City] flood event on 27 January 2023, and for landlord breaches? Legal considerations – compensation and exemplary damages

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

Compensation may also be awarded where there has been no breach by the landlord but where an unforeseen event has caused some loss, including a loss of enjoyment or actual loss.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They 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.

In Birch (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest. Were the premises Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant? If not, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

The tenant submitted that the premises were not HHS compliant. He said the heating standard was not met and he queried whether the drainage standard was met given that the guttering was blocked.

The landlord accepted that the heating standard was not met. He said he assumed the premises complied but an assessment he had done after the tenant raised the issue showed the heating standard was not met. He has since remedied that.

Mr Judge said that this was the first time he and his partner had been landlords and he had learnt a lot since.

The failure to meet the heating standard was a breach of the landlord’s obligations. But having heard the landlord’s evidence, I do not find that they acted with intent. They did not turn their minds to the act and deliberately decide to commit it.

Other than the heating standard (since remedied) the premises complied with the HHS. There was no breach of the drainage standard because of a blocked guttering.

I therefore decline to award exemplary damages. Without the necessary element of intent, the criteria for awarding exemplary damages are not met.

That said, the landlord is now on notice that they are expected to know all their statutory responsibilities and future breaches might result in exemplary damages being awarded if they amount to unlawful acts.

I have, however, included this breach by the landlord in awarding the compensation to the tenant which I will now consider. Should the tenant be awarded compensation for a loss of enjoyment, and inconvenience, following the [City] flood event on 27 January 2023, and for landlord breaches?

The tenant sought compensation of $5,000.00 which he broke down to include cleaning time and materials ($1,120.00); power costs for running a dehumidifier ($500.00); and a rent reduction for the period between the flooding event and 22 August 2023 when new carpet was laid ($3,380.00).

The landlord said the tenant never paid water rates, so the landlord kept paying them `to compensate for the effects of the flooding.

The evidence the landlord produced shows water rates of around $1,500.00 paid by the landlord, though that probably includes fixed charges which are not a tenant responsibility.

The landlord’s failure to comply with the HHS heating standard is something for which the tenant should receive compensation.

So too are the costs for time and materials the tenant incurred for cleaning and for the general loss of enjoyment of the tenancy the tenant experienced following the flooding.

As I have noted, when an event occurs that is not the result of a landlord breach (such as flooding) compensation is limited because of the unforeseen nature of the event and the fact that it is not the landlord’s fault.

There is no formula for awarding compensation. The Tribunal assesses the evidence, both oral and documentary, as best it can.

In this case, having considered the evidence overall, and considering that the tenant has had water charges waived by the landlord as part compensation, I award the tenant compensation of $2,000.00 for actual losses and for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, and for the landlord’s breach of the HHS. Result

The landlord’s application is withdrawn. The tenant’s application for a declaration that the termination notice was retaliatory is withdrawn. The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $2,000.00 for actual losses, for the landlord’s failure to comply with the HHS heating standard, and for the general loss of enjoyment of the tenancy following the flooding event on 27 January 2023.The landlord will also pay the tenant’s filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.

The tenant sought a name suppression order and is entitled to an order as the application is successful in part – see section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4758177 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44