What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4762497 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4762497?

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 4762497?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4762497?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10054375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4762497 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4762497?

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 4762497?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4762497?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10054375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4762497 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] names and identifying details.
Sole Agents Limited As Agent For John Huang to pay [The tenant/s] $7,345.44 immediately, calculated as follows:
Bond Services is to pay the full bond to [The tenant/s].

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord party included owner and his spokespersons. Three Tenants appeared on behalf of all tenants and confirmed they had authority to speak on their behalf.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord claims compensation as follows: Cleaning fees, Carpet Shampoo, Walls damages and Broken living room lamp cover which totalled $1020.50. The Landlord has not provided an invoice for the individual claims but confirms they have paid the amount in question. For the reasons set out below I have not needed to make further inquiries as to the reasonableness of the amount claimed.
The Tenants have sought exemplary damages and compensation for loss arising from the Landlord’s breach of its obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord claims the Tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The Landlord has presented photographs before and after the tenancy and I am satisfied the carpets in the upstairs living room do require cleaning as they were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I award $175.00 to the Landlord for the cost of carpet cleaning in the living room.
The Landlord’s photographs are taken too far away from surfaces for me to assess the state of their cleanliness. The Tenants have taken photographs at the start of the tenancy which show the home was not received in a reasonably clean and tidy state, with food remains in the kitchen, organic material on windows, windowsills and walls, and mould (as confirmed by the tenant who cleaned it). I dismiss this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I dismiss the Landlord’s claims for wall damage and damage to a light fitting as they have presented inadequate evidence to evidence the condition of the areas where the damage is said to have occurred.

Did the Landlord comply with its maintenance obligations?

The Tenants claim the Landlord has breached its obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This section mandates landlords to maintain their premises in a reasonable state of repair and adhere to all applicable building, health, and safety legislations, including healthy homes standards.
The Tenants’ complaint stems from an incident on 23 June 2023, where a burst pipe in the upstairs bathroom caused significant flooding, leading to damage and the development of black mould in wall cavities, an upstairs bedroom and downstairs storage and recreational space, all proximate to the burst pipe.
Although I have not heard direct evidence from the contractor in question, I have seen the markings they left, indicating which wall cavities needed to be opened and dried, and I accept the Tenant’s evidence that it showed the Landlord these markings (all 22) and relayed to the Landlord the need to effect immediate repairs.
Despite the contractor's recommendation for drying and extensive repairs to the moisture-laden areas, the Landlord opted for a temporary fix, which the Tenants argue was insufficient.
The tenants have thus sought exemplary damages of $7,200.00, the maximum allowable under the Act, for what they see as the landlord's failure to fulfil their obligations.
The landlord, in response, detailed a timeline of actions taken post-incident, including immediate repairs, engagement with insurance and contractors, and ongoing communication. They argue that their actions were prompt and in good faith, suggesting the Tenants’ tribunal case is driven by other motives, specifically, a dispute over rent reduction requests following the incident.
Upon reviewing the evidence, it is clear that while the Landlord made initial efforts to address the water damage, there was a lack of follow-through on comprehensive repairs needed to fully resolve moisture issues, leading to ongoing damp and mould problems. This is evidenced by the Landlord’s later admission of financial constraints preventing full-scale repairs and tenants’ reports of health issues exacerbated by the inhospitable living conditions, at a time when many of them were in the crucial stages of preparation for university exams, according to their evidence. The Landlord’s argument that the Tenant’s claims are motivated by rent reduction disputes does not negate the fact that there were legitimate concerns about the property’s state of repair and health risks.
The Tribunal finds that the Landlord’s actions, or lack thereof, constitute a breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Landlord’s decision to delay necessary repairs, despite being aware of the moisture issues and their potential impact on Tenants’ health and well-being, can be considered an unlawful act.
In determining exemplary damages, the Tribunal considers the Landlord’s intent, the adverse effects on the tenants, and the broader public interest in upholding the standards of housing health and safety. The Landlord’s inaction, despite knowledge of the damage and associated risks, demonstrates a disregard for these obligations.
Therefore, the Tribunal awards the tenants the full claimed amount of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages, recognising the severity of the landlord's breach and its impact on the tenants.
In determining the award of the full $7,200.00 in exemplary damages the Tribunal carefully considered several critical factors: a. Landlord’s Intent and Neglect: The Landlord’s actions demonstrate a conscious decision to defer essential repairs, despite being fully aware of the moisture and mould issues within the property. This neglect directly contravenes the Landlord’s obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Landlord’s intent to minimise expenditure, and the critical issues with the premises, at the expense of the Tenants’ health and living conditions underpins the decision to award damages at the statutory maximum. b. Adverse Effects on Tenants: The impact of the Landlord’s inaction on the tenants has been significant. Five or more young people have been affected. Living in damp and mouldy conditions for an extended period not only posed health risks but also led to discomfort and stress for them. The Tenants reported health issues, including viral and bacterial respiratory illnesses, which were exacerbated by the conditions in the home. I have not reviewed any medical evidence, but I have no reason to doubt the oral evidence provided, as I found it to be a credible and honest narrative. This adverse impact on their well-being justifies a higher compensation level to reflect the severity of their experience. c. Public Interest: Upholding high standards in residential tenancies is of paramount public interest. Awarding the full measure of exemplary damages sends a strong message to Landlords about the seriousness of their responsibilities and the consequences of neglecting them. It serves as a deterrent against future breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, promoting better compliance with health and safety standards across the housing sector. d. Duration and Severity of the Breach: The Tribunal also considered the duration of the breach — from the initial incident until the Tribunal hearing — and the severity of the conditions the Tenants were subjected to. The Landlord’s failure to undertake comprehensive repairs over an extended period exacerbated the property’s condition, warranting the maximum penalty to reflect the breach’s extended duration and severity. e. Economic Impact on Tenants: The Tenants continued to pay full rent during the period they were subjected to these conditions. The lack of adequate action from the Landlord meant the Tenants did not receive the standard of living they were entitled to under their rental agreement, contributing to the decision to award the full amount in damages. f. In conclusion, the award of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages is justified by the Landlord’s deliberate inaction, the significant adverse effects on the Tenants, the need to uphold public interest in housing standards, and the prolonged and severe nature of the breach. This decision reflects the Tribunal's commitment to enforcing the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ensuring tenants are compensated for their landlords' unlawful acts, and maintaining the integrity and safety of residential tenancies.
I have reimbursed to the Tenant its application filing fee as it has succeeded it its claim. I have granted name suppression for the same reason.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4762497 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 4762497 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the Landlord comply with its maintenance obligations?

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the Landlord comply with its maintenance obligations?