What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777400 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4777400?

Compensation: Rent reduction for 106…: $1,510.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent reduction for 151…: $5,007.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent reduction for 151…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Skip Bin Hire: $490.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,335.71 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; For Faulty Stove/Oven: $3,775.00 awarded to tenant; No HH Info In The Tenancy Agreement: $755.00 awarded to tenant; Of The RTA: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Power Points: $934.29 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $10,228.57 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door Lock: $99.80 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777400?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10462477-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777400 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4777400?

Compensation: Rent reduction for 106…: $1,510.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent reduction for 151…: $5,007.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent reduction for 151…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Skip Bin Hire: $490.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,335.71 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; For Faulty Stove/Oven: $3,775.00 awarded to tenant; No HH Info In The Tenancy Agreement: $755.00 awarded to tenant; Of The RTA: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Power Points: $934.29 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $10,228.57 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door Lock: $99.80 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777400?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10462477-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

69 Casuarina Road, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4777400 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777400 — net $18,048.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 12/10/2023	$10,228.57		Rent arrears (to 12/10/2023
Exemplary damages: (Breaches of 4 subsections of s45		$7,200.00	(Breaches of 4 subsections of s45
of the RTA		$750.00	of the RTA
Exemplary damages: (Breach of s13A(1CA) of the RTA		$5,335.71	(Breach of s13A(1CA) of the RTA
no HH info in the tenancy agreement		$755.00	no HH info in the tenancy agreement
Compensation: Rent reduction for 106 weeks and 5 days		$1,510.00	Rent reduction for 106 weeks and 5 days
for faulty stove/oven		$3,775.00	for faulty stove/oven
Compensation: Rent reduction for 151 weeks for faulty		$5,007.14	Rent reduction for 151 weeks for faulty
power points		$934.29	power points
Compensation: Rent reduction for 151 weeks for faulty		$2,400.00	Rent reduction for 151 weeks for faulty
sliding door lock		$99.80	sliding door lock
Compensation: Skip bin hire		$490.00	Skip bin hire
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$10,228.57	$28,277.38
Net award		$18,048.81
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$18,048.81

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777400 — net $18,048.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 12/10/2023	$10,228.57		Rent arrears (to 12/10/2023
Exemplary damages: (Breaches of 4 subsections of s45		$7,200.00	(Breaches of 4 subsections of s45
of the RTA		$750.00	of the RTA
Exemplary damages: (Breach of s13A(1CA) of the RTA		$5,335.71	(Breach of s13A(1CA) of the RTA
no HH info in the tenancy agreement		$755.00	no HH info in the tenancy agreement
Compensation: Rent reduction for 106 weeks and 5 days		$1,510.00	Rent reduction for 106 weeks and 5 days
for faulty stove/oven		$3,775.00	for faulty stove/oven
Compensation: Rent reduction for 151 weeks for faulty		$5,007.14	Rent reduction for 151 weeks for faulty
power points		$934.29	power points
Compensation: Rent reduction for 151 weeks for faulty		$2,400.00	Rent reduction for 151 weeks for faulty
sliding door lock		$99.80	sliding door lock
Compensation: Skip bin hire		$490.00	Skip bin hire
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$10,228.57	$28,277.38
Net award		$18,048.81
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$18,048.81

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Sunshine Property Group Limited and Lz Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant] $18,048.81immediately calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenant and a representative from LZ Property Management Ltd attended the hearing. No representative from Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd attended the hearing.
I am satisfied that Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlords have applied for rent arrears (from two different periods of the tenancy where two different property management companies were managing the property), refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a cross application for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy commenced on 20 November 2020 and ended on 12 October 2023.
The owner of the property has lived overseas for a long period of time and has appointed agents to act on the owner’s behalf.
Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd was the landlord for the tenancy from 20 November 2020 to 10 July 2023. During this period the tenant dealt with two property managers. The tenancy was initially for a fixed term from 20 November 2020 to 19 November 2021 and became periodic thereafter. The tenant says the first property manager was unsuccessful at getting the owner to get the tenant’s significant repair and maintenance issues investigated and remedied, that the second property manager did start to resolve some of those issues and shortly after that property manager started managing the property the owner took the property management contract away from Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd. The tenant produced a text message from Jon Sunshine dated 14 October 2022 that says, “I just want to inform you that the landlord is very dissatisfied with my job, so he is going to a new property manager and has already sent me an email”. The tenant says this property manager only lasted a very short time as he started to get some of the repair issues fixed.
LZ Property Management Ltd was the landlord from 11 July 2023 to 12 October 2023. During this period the tenancy was periodic, and the tenant dealt with one property manager. This property manager gave evidence that after the first inspection of the property he refused to manage the unlawful property unless it was brought up to the healthy homes standards and a reasonable state of repair. This resulted in the owner taking the property management contract away from LZ Property Management Group Ltd and giving the agency of the property to a friend that would not confront the owner about the state of the property.
The tenant’s weekly rent varied during the period of her tenancy as follows: a. $680.00 rent per week from 20 November 2020 to 28 February 2021 (14 weeks and 2 days); b. $780.00 rent per week from 1 March 2021 to 30 September 2022 (82 weeks and 4 days); c. $900.00 rent per week from 1 October 2022 to 10 July 2023, after the tenant was finally able to access all rooms in the house and the garage even though she had been paying rent for the entire house and garage for the duration of the tenancy to date (40 weeks and 2 days); and d. $700.00 rent per week from 11 July 2023 to 12 October 2023 as the tenant was unable to use the downstairs shower, bedrooms or kitchen and there was no carpet downstairs. Everything had been ripped out of the downstairs area so that renovations could commence (13 weeks and 2 days).
The tenant initially reduced the amount of rent she paid around 27 April 2023 and then she periodically stopped paying rent from 18 May 2023 because of the significant number of alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations to her under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and the tenancy agreement that were not investigated or remedied. After numerous attempts to get these breaches remedied and she considered that she would have an equitable offset to the rent arrears because of the landlord’s significant and protracted breaches of the RTA and of the tenancy agreements.
By the end of the tenancy the tenant owed the landlord rent arrears of $10,228.57 made up as follows: a. The tenant owed Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd $4,928.57 rent arrears to 10 July 2023. b. The tenant owed LZ Property Management Ltd $5,300.00 rent arrears for the period 11 July 2023 to 12 October 2023.
I will consider the tenant’s claims first to determine whether she has an equitable offset to the rent arrears owing and the quantum of any such offset.

TENANT CLAIMS

A. Breaches of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The tenant claims the landlord breached a number of its s45 of the RTA obligations to her.
Breaching any of the landlords s45 of the RTA 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.
Regardless of the number breaches of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA, they are still considered to be a breach of one section of the RTA. I can only make an order to the maximum of $7,200.00 for any breaches under section 45(1A), but I can take into account that there are a number of breaches within that section.
General damages may be awarded for breaches of s45 of the RTA and these general come in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenant.
The award of exemplary and/or general damages for any proven breaches of s45 of the RTA will be quantified with the other s45 breaches later in this decision.

Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms?

Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to comply with its obligation to provide smoke alarms in the premise in accordance with s138A of the RTA regulations.
Landlord’s must install working smoke alarms: a. within 3 metres of each bedroom door, or in every room where a person sleeps; and b. in each level or storey of a multi-storey or multi-level home; c. in all rental homes, boarding houses, rental caravans, and self-contained sleep-outs.
All new smoke alarms must: a. be photoelectric; b. have a battery life of at least eight years, or be hard-wired; c. installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions; and d. meet international standard.
Existing smoke alarms do not need to be replaced if they are working and have not passed the expiry date.
The tenant provided photographic and oral evidence that the premise is a two story 4-bedroom home that was built in 1976 and for the duration of her tenancy it did not have any working smoking alarms in each storey nor did it have smoke alarms within 3 metres of each bedroom door, nor in every room where her family slept.
Further the tenant produced email evidence that she raised this issue with Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd on 26November 2020 stating the issue had come up on her family’s safety checklist and that it should have been done before the family moved in on 20 November 2020. It also says “I hope this will be taken to action ASAP its for safety hazard”.
The property manager from LZ Property Management Ltd provided me with the property inspection report he wrote after his inspection on the date he took over the management of the property on 11 July 2023. This inspection report confirms there were no working smoke alarms in the premise at this time and none had been installed since he took over management of the property.
LZ Property Management Ltd confirmed it did not have any of the property inspection reports completed by Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd, so I had to rely on the tenant’s photographic and oral evidence to support her claims that there had been no working smoke alarms for the entire duration of the tenancy, being 150 weeks 6 days from 20 November 2020 to 12 October 2023.
I find that the landlord intentionally failed to provide smoke alarms to the tenant, in breach of its s45(1)(ba) of the RTA obligations.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord’s breach created an unnecessary risk to life to the tenant and her family; b. The tenant suffered the stress of knowing her and her family’s safety was put at risk because of the landlord’s intentional breach of the RTA and the New Zealand’s smoke alarm regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress and safety risk she lived with for the duration of her tenancy; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide lawful smoke alarms to their tenants.

Did the landlord provide safe premises for the tenant?

Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA states the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to comply with all requirements in health, and safety under the Health and Safety At Work Act 2015 (HSAWA), so far as this applies to the rental premises, for which she is seeking exemplary damages to the maximum permissible amount.
Section 17(1)(a) of the HSAWA introduces the concept of a person conducting a business or undertaking (“PCBU”). Section 36(2) of the HSAWA imposes a duty of care on all PCBUs to ensure the health and safety of workers and other people who have contact with their business or undertaking. Under the HSAWA, landlords are regarded as PCBUs, subject to some exceptions. As such landlords have a primary duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of people affected by work on their property. This duty includes the landlord’s management and control of the premises, such as managing and controlling common areas such as carparks, stairwells, entrances and exits to the property and premises.
Therefore, the tenant’s landlord has a duty of care to her and her family to, so far as reasonably practicable, ensure that the entries and exits, common areas, landlords’ fixtures, fittings, plant and structures do not pose health and safety risks to them. The duty of care not only extends to the tenant and her family, but also to contractors engaged by the landlord to do work at the rental premise, and other persons working at the property.
What is considered “reasonably practicable” depends on the circumstances and factors to be taken into account by the landlords include: a. The likelihood of the risk or hazard occurring; b. The degree of harm that might result from the risk or hazard; c. What is known, or would be reasonably expected to be known, about a risk or hazard; d. How to eliminate or minimise the risk, and the costs of doing so. External staircase
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to ensure the external staircase that provides access from the top story of the property to the ground was fit for purpose and safe to use.
She says the landlord had his or other persons personal property in the garage and the downstairs areas so that the tenants could not use the internal staircase on the other lounge side of the house to move from the top story to the ground level of the house. As such they had to use the external unsafe staircase to enter and exit the property. She provided evidence of several broken and unstable stairs that remained that way from the start of the tenancy until the end of November of 2022.
The tenant also provided evidence that her daughter had been badly hurt on 11 January 2021 because of falling down the broken and unstable staircase and that still did not prompt the landlord to have the staircase fixed.
She also produced numerous text messages and emails where she repeatedly requests to have the staircase fixed and reiterates how much of a health and safety hazard it is for her family. She has also produced witness statements from family and friends that have had to use the external staircase and have attested to how dangerous it was. Deck and deck railing
The tenant and the property manager from LZ Property Management Ltd gave evidence that proved the deck and railing was rotten, unsafe and unusable due to the large number of rotting and unstable boards and loose railing that the tenant and her family were highly likely to fall through if they walked on or leant on it. The evidence shows many of the deck boards were lifting as well as rotten and the railing was highly unstable.
The tenant produced evidence that proves she raised this issue by email with the property broker on 29 October 2020 prior to the tenancy starting, at the beginning of her tenancy, again on 26 November 2020 and throughout the time that Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd managed the property and it did nothing to investigate or remediate the rotten deck boards or the railing. This left the tenant and her family at risk of harm if they walked on the deck or leant on the railing as it was unsafe and not fit for purpose.
The tenant’s 29 October 2020 email reads “Hi Seth Good morning just following up with the maintenance at the house have you been able to speak with the housing manager and confirm those jobs will be done so we can make a decision please. The deck needs to be redone the floor for safety hazards for anyone. The garage the stuff in there if its gonna be removed and the ceiling to be fixed. The pool outside will it be cleaned and even the inside of the house will it be more cleaner and tidying up the rooms, floors, bathrooms, kitchen, living room and dining room. The tree branches at the front and back will they cut the grass and chop the trees down clean up outside first the garden and then waterblast the house. As for my knowledge of knowing to rent a home the place will be maintenance inside and outside then the people before will be put out cause I don’t want to move in my family to a property and we have to clean and tidy it up before we feel its home for us”. The property broker confirms all of this will be done and the rent is good at $680.00 per week. None of these issues were addressed prior to the tenancy commencing.
The tenant says she raised all these issues again with the property manager and produced a text message from Ken Dai from Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd dated 26 November 2020 that says “regarding the deck and exits, some professionals did healthy homes checking before you moved in. I am sure the deck and exits meet the healthy homes standard well”.
On 9 November 2021 the tenant emailed the property manager again after a property inspection. The email reads: “Good morning Michelle thank you for your email for the inspection please I prefer to book appointment for inspection at LEVEL 2 please but the maintenance of the house the stairs needs to be fixed as it is breaking to pieces slowly on its own and we have photos been taken and this matter I have mentioned it since I've moved in to Ken to Jonathan and now to You it's not safe it's a big issues and even one of my kids have hurt themselves from it and I've send photo of that before to Ken it was caused from the stairs and I can sue anyone for that cos its something I've asked before and it was not been looked after and one of my children was hurt from it HEALTH AND SAFETY AND ITS A HAZARD, the oven door hasn't been fix at all it's still hanging and how do everyone expect me to cook with a broken oven door and a stove with some problem with it but we have to put up with it anyways....the garage door same thing hasn't been fixed at all which I was been told it will be arranged to get it fixed as I know you've told me we wait for LEVEL 2 for the electrician guy to come to check the plugs downstairs which is all off for the second time and for someone to come and open downstairs for the other main power switch how complicated things are with the Landlord cause tenants haven't met the landlord and agents doesn't have much info about the Landlord either. The landlords rubbish outside at the front and in the laundry room I've mention it before to Jonathan to ask the landlord if it can be removed cause it's attracting RATS to the House and its disgusting, and its HEALTH AND SAFETY too and the water train at the front door is block we try to unblock it but it's the trees with leaves and its all stuck inside the train a plumber needs to come and do that job. I understand the house is old but the landlord needs to do there job properly.. the curtains is not good the windows are not close properly the showers and toilets seats are not the right toilet seats this issues was bring up by my social worker before to Ken but he said it will be done soon he will speak to the Landlord and that's all we get is will speak to the landlord and nothing happens. Sorry to say but it's a shame having those rubbish not belong to us stacked at the front and it makes us look like we are HOARDERS and people walk and look at the house thinking we are living here and it's our rubbish its almost 1year Me and My family stayed here and we love the area but we wish the Landlord can contact with us or when we speak to the house manager about something that I'm concern about and some actions been taken or any communication back from the Landlord I still have some questions which I asked so many times it hasn't been answered directly to me by the Landlord or whoever so and it puts me in a mind that things here a bit dodgy here but I always try to negotiate and be patient since we moved here and hoping for answered and miracles the landlord will fix up the house properly for his/ her TENANTS and open the front part of the house for us to use cause I was told when we view the house maybe in the long run we stay here up to 1 year which is a year soon we will be here for more then 1 year of course then the bottom front will be open for us to use the whole house .Those are something I'm still waiting for and I was always told it wasn't on contract but I was also told we will more negotiate if we stay here to 1 year which we are and we have clean the front yard and we do our best to make the house look more decent more look like people are living in the property cause sure like the house was just left for years and I think landlord should appreciate us cause I was told it take ages to find someone to rent the place and now I know why cause the house standards is very low and if only people know how we struggle to communicate to the Landlord thru the agent's and I'm sure house manager would have done the job to bring the house up to the standard to rent out house and if someone from the NZ tribunal comes to check the house maintenance and all I'm sure the standard of the house won't pass. Well that's just me and my concerns and all but hope we will have a proper inspection at LEVEL 2 and Some Good New then from the Landlord. Thank you so much stay Safe”. This email outlines many significant health and safety issues that the landlord did not address.
The property manager from LZ Property Management Ltd confirmed the deck was still not repaired when he took over the management of the property and had photographs from his initial property management inspection report that showed the deck was in a very bad state of repair and was unsafe. The photographs show the deck had been deteriorating for a lengthy period and could not have been safe when the tenant moved in. He also confirmed he asked the tenant’s not to use the deck as he was concerned about their safety.
I find that the landlords failed to provide a safe environment for then tenant when they failed to repair the staircase or the rotten deck boards and that in doing so it failed to meet its duty of care to the tenant to take all reasonably practicable steps to keep her and her family safe while entering and exiting the premise via the staircase.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. It is reasonably foreseeable that when you have broken and lose stairs on an external wet and slippery staircase and/or numerous rotten decking boards will pose significant health and safety hazard for the tenant, her family and any visitors that are forced to walk over these safety hazards to enter and exit the house; b. The tenant’s daughter suffered a physical injury to her leg, as well as the stress and inconvenience of having to use a broken and unsafe staircase as well as suffering the loss of amenity of the deck that was unusable due to its unsafe state. c. In failing to investigate and remedy these health and safety hazards, the landlord were in breach of s45(1)(c) of the RTA and s36 of the HSAWA. d. In addition, the tenant was subject to the continual stress of having to raise these issues with the landlords and remind it of its obligations to her and her family’s health and safety; e. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience, health and safety risks she and her family lived with for the duration of her almost 3-year tenancy; and f. It is in the public interest for landlords to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their health and safety obligations.
I am also satisfied that an award of general damages for this breach is justified and will be quantified with the other s45 breaches later in this decision. 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 . 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 addition to failing to maintain the external staircase and deck as referred to in paragraphs [31] to [51] above, there were numerous other examples the tenant gave in her evidence regarding the landlord’s failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. Oven upstairs and faulty power plugs
The tenant gave evidence that the oven upstairs did not work when she moved into the premise on 20 November 2020 and there were several faulty power plugs that needed repair.
She and her family had to cook downstairs on a barbeque and a portal stove top and were unable to use a number of unsafe power points.
The tenant proved she had emailed the landlord on 20 November 2020, 24 November 2020, 4 November 2021, 9 November 2021 and 4 November 2022 and nothing was done to investigate or remediate the issues.
The 24 November 2020 email says “that’s the oven when I cook it takes half a day to cook cause the stove is slow an oven doesn’t work it needs replacement”. She also asks about when the power points will be repaired.
Ken Dai from Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd sent an email to the tenant on 26 November 2020 saying “stove, oven, I will send an electrician to check and fix them. Could you please send me pictures of them”. The tenant confirmed no electrician was sent and nothing further was done to investigate or remedy the issue.
After the 9 November 2021 property inspection the tenant sent an email to the property manager which says “the oven door hasn't been fix at all it's still hanging and how do everyone expect me to cook with a broken oven door and a stove that won’t work with some problem with it but we have to put up with it anyways....the garage door same thing hasn't been fixed at all which I was been told it will be arranged to get it fixed as I know you've told me we wait for LEVEL 2 for the electrician guy to come to check the plugs downstairs which is all off for the second time and for someone to come and open downstairs for the other main power switch how complicated things are with the Landlord cause tenants haven't met the landlord and agents doesn't have much info about the Landlord either”.
The tenant says, when the second property manager from Sunshine Property Group Management Ltd took over management of the property in late 2022, a new oven was finally installed on 7 December 2022, 13 months after the tenancy had commenced and the issue was first raised. The power points were not fixed. Ceiling around the fireplace was leaking
The property manager from LZ Property Management Ltd confirmed there was a ceiling leak around the fireplace that needed remedying as it was causing damage to the ceiling and the flooring. He says the owner did not want to have this issue investigated or remediated. This was part of the reason his company refused to continue to manage the property.
The tenant confirmed the roof had been leaking around the fireplace for well over a year before LZ property management Ltd took over management of the property and that the previous property managers had not addressed the issue at all.
The ceiling was still leaking when LZ Property Management Ltd assisted the tenant into a new tenancy at a safer and better maintained property. The sliding door lock was broken.
The property manager from LZ Property Management Ltd confirmed the sliding door lock was broken when he took over the management of the property and that it needed remedying. He says the owner did not want to have this issue investigated or remediated. This was part of the reason his company refused to continue to manage the property.
The tenant confirmed the lock had been broken at the start of the tenancy and she produced emails that prove she raised this issue with the prior property management company, but the lock was never repaired. This made the tenant feel unsafe as the house was not fully secure. Spa Pool
The tenant says she asked for the pool to be cleaned before her tenancy commenced and produced an email, dated 29 October 2020, to the property broker that confirms this.
The first property managers asked her to clean the spa pool when her tenancy commenced. It had not been cleaned prior to her moving in.
The tenant cleaned the pool and then found it did not work. She raised this issue with the property manager and was told to cover it and keep it clean and they would get it fixed.
The tenant says the spa pool was never fixed and remained not working for the entire duration of the tenancy, being 150 weeks 6 days from 20 November 2020 to 12 October 2023.
The tenant suffered a loss of amenity and the stress and inconvenience of having to keep something clean that wasn’t clean when she moved in and that she and her family couldn’t use. I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally failed to remedy the issues with the spa pool and an award of exemplary damages is warranted. Rubbish and other inorganic items in the downstairs area of the house and under the deck.
At the beginning of the tenancy the tenant was rented the entire house and garage at a rate of $680.00 per week.
The tenant says that when she viewed the house, 2 months before her tenancy started, under the deck, in the garage and a large part of the downstairs area of the house was filled with rubbish and inorganic property. The landlord promised to have this removed before she and her family moved in. She confirmed to the landlord that she has a large family and needed to use the downstairs bedrooms, bathroom and kitchen. She agreed to rent the property on the landlord’s promise all the rubbish and inorganic property would be removed before she and her family moved in.
She sent an email and a text message on 29 October 2020, just prior to moving in where she confirms “The landlords rubbish outside at the front and in the laundry room I've mention it before to Jonathan to ask the landlord if it can be removed cause it's attracting RATS to the House and it’s disgusting, and its HEALTH AND SAFETY too”.
She says that when she moved in, the rubbish and inorganic property was still under the deck, blocking up the garage, the laundry at the back of the house, and a large part of the downstairs lounge. This meant she and her family could not use this area of the house, including the internal staircase to get from the top level of the house to outside of the house. As such, they had to use the broken and unstable external staircase.
She produced an email dated 26 November 2020 from Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd where Ken Dai says: “All the stuff under the carport and in the laundry room, the owner is sorry for the inconvenience. He will move it out in the future, and you won’t be responsible for that. At present, plenty of car parking spaces are available for you around the house”.
The tenant says the people over the road used to rent the premise and landlord seemed to have allowed them to also use the garage to store some of their belongings. The tenant says they told her the landlord gave them permission to keep coming in and out of the garage to take odd items of the inorganic property. No arrangements were ever made with her or her family for them to access he garage and the lounge area downstairs. The property manager did not seem to know anything about this. The tenant says she kept asking Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd to get this rubbish and inorganic property removed as these odd persons turning up from time to time were concerning her and her family.
The tenant produced an undated text message that says: “Good morning Michelle my daughter just told me someone is downstairs at the house at the part that’s lock by the landlord. I’m not home and no one informed me someone is coming to the house to that side I have my kids at home and I’m at the hospital with my sick son and his getting his operation tomorrow. My daughter text me I wanted to let you know when someone is coming to fix the steps before some hurt themselves its very dangerous and let me know when someone comes to the house in case something goes missing and someone blame us but its not us just to be on the safeside”.
The tenant produced a text message dated 26 July 2022 that informs the property manager that she will have to move out if the landlord doesn’t give her the other side of the downstairs area of the house soon “cause I need more space as we big people with growing children we need the space an privacy but I appreciate it if the landlord allows us to use the front too but how soon for this to happen?? Please I’m very happy we don’t use the outside stairs on winter its too cold.. maybe its cheap for the landlord to pay a storage to store his contents there just suggesting.. will be able to use the other side of the house downstairs before Christmas? Sometime soon?”
The tenant produced further emails that show she raised this issue with the landlord multiple times between 20 November 2020, when she moved in until 4 November 2022 and nothing was done about the removal of the rubbish and the inorganic items in the garage, laundry and downstairs lounge.
Part of these emails was an email trail dated 28 September 2022 where she asks the second Sunshine property manager to get the rubbish and property removed or she will have to move out as she needs the space for her family and the property manager says he will try to get the owner to make a decision as soon as possible and will try to get her an answer by the end of October 2022.
The tenant says she then messaged the property manager again on 29 October 2022 and its response to her 29 October 2022 message was to tell her to clear out the rubbish and inorganic property herself if it was such an issue to her. She told them it was the landlord’s responsibility to do this.
By the end of October 2022, the tenant says the rubbish and inorganic property was attracting rats, mice and cockroaches and was starting to emit foul odours.
On 22 November 2022, the tenant and 5 members of her family and friends took 2 days to remove all the rubbish and inorganic property, that she says consisted mostly of broken furniture and other things of no value. They also cleaned out a significant amount of rubbish and inorganic waste from under the rotten deck.
The tenant produced a witness statement from the friend that assisted her and her family to clean out the rubbish and states: “I decided to help remove the rubbish with the agreement with Mr and Mrs [tenant surname supressed], as it was causing rats and mice to appear at the property and smell. The understanding was that the landlord/ agent was aware of this since day one of handing the keys to the tenants and had advised someone was coming to collect the organics/ rubbish not only out in the car port but the laundry room was packed with stuff that potentially belonged to previous tenants or the landlord, as this was unclear”.
The tenant provided proof she hired a skip bin at a cost of $490.00, which she has never been reimbursed for by the landlord. She also proved she had paid two of her friends that helped her at $400.00 for two days each. The total cost of $800.00 was never repaid to her by the landlord.
The tenant also purchased 6 pairs of safety gloves and masks for the protection of the persons helping to clean out rotting rubbish and broken furniture that was full of rodents and cockroaches. The safety gloves cost the tenant $12.00 a pair. The masks cost her $13.90 per pack of three and she purchased 2 packs. The total cost she has proven she incurred was $99.80 and this was never reimbursed by the landlord.
The tenant and her 3 family members lost time away from their work and should also be compensated for the 16 hours they each worked to clear the rubbish at a rate of $25.00 per hour for 16 hours, being $400.00 each person at a total cost of $1,600.00.
In October 2022, after the tenant had been told to clear out the rubbish and inorganic property, the landlord put the rent up to $900.00 per week as she now had access to all the premises. Leaks affecting the downstairs area of the house.
The tenants gave evidence that on 20 November 2022 there were water leaks that were causing extensive flooding to the downstairs area of the premises both inside and outside.
The tenant produced two text messages to the property manager dated 20 November 2022 at 3:46am that says “Michelle I was awake from a pipe leak we don’t know where is it from???” “my water bills I’m worry about my health and the safety of my family”.
The tenant produced another text message she sent to the property manager on 22 November that says “Good morning Michelle is anyone gonna come to fix the pipe I am very worried about the water bills and not only that the waste the water running we try to tie something to hold it or stop it but it is not working”.
Three hours later the tenant got a text message reply that reads “I talked to the landlord yesterday and they said they won’t fix it for now, so you need to find something to cover it”.
The tenant says in response, “But I put down on my notes the day and time we found this outside leaking cause if the water comes too high I will not pay it cause I know its from the leaking that the landlord wont fix and I will only pay for the water among we used”.
The tenant says the property manager then stated the tenant’s husband’s work vehicle was causing the leak and that a plumber had come and said the leak may be underneath the vehicle. The property manager told the tenant the owner had told her to tell the tenant they were not allowed to use the driveway and the leak would stop if no one used the driveway. The tenant produced another text message from the property manager dated 8 August 2022 where the property manager says “Good evening, I explained to the landlord said you have to park your car in the yard, otherwise your husband will lose his job, the landlord wants to see similar terms of documents, can you send to me?” The tenant replies “ from his work???”. The landlord had clearly been looking for an excuse to stop the tenant parking in the driveway to the house, for reasons unknown to her.
The tenant said that in frustration for being blamed for the leak and no longer being able to keep her husband’s truck off the roadside, she got the council to come and look at the pipes. The council investigated the leak and told that the tenant the truck was not causing the leak, it was an internal leak that was leading to a lot of water coming outside and that it was the owner’s responsibility to affect the necessary repairs.
The tenant then texted the property manager on 23 November 2022 and told her “The carpet is soaking wet I woke up to it this morning and I blame must be from the pipes. It’s not the shower its the pipe between the walls of the house just letting yu know Michelle... and the water is still leaking we try our best to cover it yesterday and we will do it again today but honestly a qualified plumber needs to come in and fix the pipes”. She attached a photograph of the sodden downstairs carpet.
On 24 November 2022, the tenant texted the property manager again saying “Good morning Michelle sorry I know you told me the Landlord will not fix the pipe but I don’t know what else to do about the leaking pipes this morning we woke up with a floor soaking wet and I message you and also a photo too but I doubt nothing is gonna be done as the landlord told you to tell us we fix it I know Michelle you told me you can help me exchange house its ok to exchange house but its very close to the holidays and busy tome of the year and we don’t want to have to move”.
During this period, the tenant provided other text message that show she kept asking for her water reading so she could check on the water usage but the property manager keeps making excuses for not getting a water reading for her. The property manager told her to turn off all the water and check the water meter and then see if the numbers change on the meter. She did this and there was evidence of water leaking when no one was using anything in the house.
The leak was eventually fixed in December 2022, but the tenant says the significant damage the leak had caused to the downstairs bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen as lounge made it unliveable and the tenant was still not able to use an area they had worked so hard to clear rubbish out of. Further, the carpets became smelly and mouldy, and the tenant found it increasingly hard to keep the entire house free from dampness and coldness. In addition, the water bills increased by around $125.00 those two months.
On 11 July 2023, when the new property manager from LZ Property Management Ltd took over the management of the tenancy, the rent was reduced to $700.00 per week because the flooding in the ground level of the house had rendered it unusable. He confirmed there was excessive mould and a terrible smell in the rooms downstairs, so he had the shower, carpet and kitchen facilities ripped out so that it was ready for renovation. He confirmed also that it had been significant flooding from the leaking pipes that had caused this considerable damage to that area of the house. He said the downstairs bedrooms damp, mouldy and unliveable so the children had been sleeping upstairs in the lounge and the family had to use the one upstairs bathroom.
There were also other leaks that occurred during the tenancy as the house feel into further state of disrepair.
I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to repair the leak in a reasonable timeframe and to remedy the damage the leak cause so that house was returned to a reasonable state of repair that the tenant could use.
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 there was an internal leak that was so bad water was flowing from inside and causing flooding in the driveway and garage and was causing flooding through the downstairs rooms of the house. The landlord refused to have these repaired in a reasonable timeframe. When the landlord did remedy the leak, it took no steps to investigate and remedy the extensive damage that rendered the downstairs area unliveable; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with the loss of the amenity of the downstairs area of the house, having to live in an unhealthy damp and mouldy house and having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind it of its obligations under the RTA to no avail; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity from 22 November 2022 to 12 October 2023, a period of 11 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. Worn window seals with draught coming in.
The tenant gave evidence that the window seals throughout the house were worn and let draught in. Consequently, she found it hard to keep the house warm and dry.
She says she raised this issue repeatedly for the duration of the tenancy and the landlord did not begin to investigate, let alone repair this defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances or at all. As a result, the tenant lived in a cold and damp home that was hard to keep dry and warm for the duration of her tenancy.
I am satisfied the evidence provided proves the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally, when it failed to remedy the numerous repair and maintenance issues continually raised by the tenant in a reasonable timeframe, if at all. I am also satisfied that an award of exemplary and general are justified, having regard to the landlord’s clear intent not to repair or maintain the property to a reasonable standard, the effect of the unlawful acts on the tenant and her family, the tenant’s interests, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant claims the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, which requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
These issues have been traversed in paragraphs [45],[47] and [69] to [91].
I am satisfied that the premises were far from reasonably clean when the tenant moved in, despite her raising this issue with the property broker before her move in date and with the property manager just before she moved in, when she moved in and for some time after she moved in.
The lack of cleanliness was obvious from the evidence the tenant provided. The premises were very far from reasonably clean, and the garage and the yard needed extensive maintenance.
The tenant had forewarned the property broker and the property manager about the cleanliness issues. It follows that the landlord’s breach was intentional and an award of exemplary and general damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity that resulted from these s45(1)(a) breaches. Exemplary damages for all four section 45 RTA breaches
The question then becomes the amount of exemplary damages to order. There are four section 45 breaches of obligations under section 45(1)(a), (b),(ba)and(c) of the RTA (cleanliness, health and safety, smoke alarm and repairs and maintenance breaches), but that is still a breach of one section of the RTA, that section 45. I can only make an order to the maximum of $7,200.00 for a breach under section 45(1A), but I can take into account that there are four breaches within section 45 of the RTA and 10 breaches within the repair and maintenance section 45(1)(b).
Having done so, I consider an order at the maximum for the breaches of section 45(1)(a),(b),(ba)and(c) would be reasonable. There are no factors which argue for a lesser order in my view. I therefore order exemplary damages of $7,200.00.
The tenant also seeks compensation. I consider it is fair to order compensation. The tenant was expected to pay rent for premises which did not meet the required standards. I note that exemplary damages are not compensatory, so it is reasonable to order a sum of money to compensate the tenant for her loss – compensation.
I must also take into consideration that the RTA requires parties to mitigate their loss. The tenant could have come to the Tribunal seeking work orders to address any defects but did not. The tenant could have issued 14-day notices to the landlord and did not. The tenant did however follow the landlord up frequently in order to get it to comply with its obligations but two of the three property managers who managed this property throughout the tenancy confirmed to the tenant that they had a lot of trouble contacting the overseas owner and he always refused to allow them to undertake the required investigation and/or remedy of the multiple ongoing issues the tenant raised during her fraught tenancy.
When I step back and consider what a fair amount of rent rebate compensation would be, I consider the following to be reasonable: a. $50.00 per week for the 106 week and 5-day period from 20 November 2020 to 7 December 2022 for the loss of the amenity of the oven and stove and the inconvenience of having to cook outside on a barbeque and portable gas burner. This totals an award of $5,335.71; b. $5.00 per week for the 151 weeks the tenant was unable to use two faulty power points from 20 November 2020 to 13 October 2023. This totals an award of $755.00; c. $10.00 per week for the 151 weeks the tenant was unable to rely on the sliding door lock that was broken and created a security issue from 20 November 2020 to 13 October 2023. This totals an award of $1,510.00; d. $25.00 per week for the 151 weeks the tenant was unable to use the deck as it was a significant safety issue for the tenant and her family from 20 November 2020 to 13 October 2023. This totals an award of $3,775.00; e. $50.00 per week for the 100 weeks and 1 day the tenant was unable to use the garage, downstairs laundry and lounge due these areas being cluttered with rubbish and inorganic items the landlord refused to remove while continuing to charge the tenant full rent from 20 November 2020 to 22 November 2022. This totals an award of $5,007.14; f. An additional $20.00 per week for the period 20 November 2022 to 13 October 2023 (46 weeks and 5 days) for the loss of amenity of the downstairs areas of the premise the tenant had cleared of rubbish and was unable to use due to the significant damage from the leak. This totals an award of $934.29. Failure to provide healthy homes standards statement and information in the tenancy agreement.
[The tenant/s] claims that both landlords have breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to provide healthy homes information to the tenant.
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 tenancy with Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd commenced prior to 1 July 2021 when most of the health homes standards took effect. However, prior to 1 July 2021, new tenancy agreements should have contained an insulation statement as ceiling and underfloor insulation were compulsory in all rental homes from 1 July 2019. No insulation statement was provided to the tenant or attached to the tenancy agreement.
In addition, it was required to complete a form or have a signed statement showing current levels of compliance with the standards from December 2020 and it did not.
It was also required to sign a statement of intent to comply with healthy home standards in new, varied or renewed tenancy agreements and from December 2020. The tenant never received a new, varied or renewed tenancy agreement. Her original fixed term tenancy with Sunshine Property Management Group rolled over into a periodic tenancy on 20 November 2021 and that tenancy agreement remained in force when LZ Property Management Ltd took over the tenancy on 11 July 2023.
I find Sunshine Property Management Group on behalf of the owner committed an unlawful act by not ensuring the tenant was provided with the required healthy homes information as part of the tenancy agreement in November 2020 when the tenancy commenced.
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.
Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd has used a Tenancy Services template tenancy agreement that contains individual statements for all of the healthy homes standards. It has simply failed to complete the healthy homes statement sections of the template agreement required in November 2020.
When LZ Property Management Ltd took over the management of the tenancy on 11 July 2023, the existing tenancy agreement remained in force with the same terms and conditions (the tenant did not need to sign a new agreement). At this time, the new property management company did not complete statements for all of the healthy homes standards as its first property inspection report showed the premise did not meet the healthy homes standards and would not pass a healthy homes assessment if it commissioned one. It sought to get permission from the landlord to remedy the issues that led to the premise being non-compliant. After giving it, some thought, the owner decided to change its agent again to a friend to ensure the owner was not placed under any further pressure to ensure the healthy homes breaches were investigated fully and remedied to the required standards.
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 $750.00 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 tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise that did 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 the healthy homes standards and that the landlord had no intention of working towards the healthy homes standard being meet. The tenant 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 met required the healthy homes standards and/or that it was committed to working towards meeting them in the required timeframes; 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.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord claims that the tenant was in $4,928.57 when Sunshine property Group Ltd ceased managing the property around 10 July 2023, and that under its second property management company, LZ Property Management Ltd, the tenant accrued a further $5,300.00 of rent arrears in the period 11 July 2023 to 12 October 2023.
LZ Property Management Ltd confirmed during the hearing that it ceased managing the property on 12 October 2023, because it refused to relet the property until the repair and maintenance work was done that was required for the property to meet the healthy homes standards. The property manager confirmed that he gave the tenant notice so this work could be undertaken but after the tenant vacated the owner of the property indicated he did not want to undertake the necessary repair and maintenance work and conveyed to LZ Property Management Ltd that a friend of his would take over the management of the property.
The tenant confirmed she had two property managers in the period from 20 November 2020 to 10 July 2023 when Sunshine Property Management Group Ltd managed the property for the owner, who lives overseas. The tenant says the first property manager refused to undertake any repair and maintenance work and always told the tenant to owner refused to have it done or told her to do it herself or get a contractor to do the repairs/maintenance and the owner would reimburse her at some stage at the end of the tenancy.
In Grant v NZMC Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 8, the Court of Appeal found that where the tenant has a cross claim which so affects the landlord's claim for unpaid rent, it would be unjust to allow the landlord to have judgment without bringing the crossclaim to account, then it was not appropriate to give summary judgment for the unpaid rent to the landlord. Rather, it was necessary to allow the landlord's claim and the tenant's crossclaim both to be heard so that the overall merits can be determined. This required that the link between the claim and the crossclaim made them inter-dependent, so that judgment on one could not fairly be given without regard to the other and the tenant's claim calls into question or impeaches the landlord's demand.
Consequently, I have heard and determined the tenant’s claims and the tenant has been awarded exemplary and general damages that offset all of the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777400 — Exemplary damages at 69 Casuarina Road, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777400 — Exemplary damages at 69 Casuarina Road, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms?

Did the landlord provide safe premises for the tenant?

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms?

Did the landlord provide safe premises for the tenant?

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions