What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4785579 about?

The tribunal order states: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,020.44

How much money was awarded in case 4785579?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785579?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785579?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9972535-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4785579 about?

The tribunal order states: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,020.44

How much money was awarded in case 4785579?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785579?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785579?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9972535-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4785579 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4785579 — net $4,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,020.44

Order

Wolfbrook Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $2,500.00 Exemplary damages $1,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $4,020.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $4,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented by Ms Ranger. The Landlord
There is a preliminary issue regarding the correct landlord party to the application.
The tenancy agreement records that the landlord is Wolfbrook Property Management on behalf of Sandeep Mathur and Sneha Tiwary.
An agent who enters into a contract or tenancy agreement for a disclosed landlord usually acts as an intermediary and is not personally liable.
However, under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 a “landlord” includes an agent, “where appropriate”.
The Tenancy Agreement is on a standard form provided by Wolfbrook Property Management. It records that all rights and obligations of the Landlord are assumed by the Property Manager. 1 It also requires the tenant to direct all communication intended for the Landlord to the Property Manager.
The evidence also establishes that, in this case, Wolfbrook Property Management assumed control for the required repairs and instructed an in- house maintenance team and/or contractors employed by a related business. There is no evidence of the property owner having any involvement in repair decisions.
For those reasons, I find that it is appropriate to recognise Wolfbrook Property Management as the Landlord for this tenancy, and in respect of this application. The Tenant’s Claims
The tenants claim that the landlord breached repair and maintenance obligations, entered the premises without proper notice and interfered with their reasonable peace and quiet. The application also included allegations in relation to the Healthy Homes standards, but these were really claims that the landlord failed to properly repair and maintain the premises.
The tenants provided clear evidence of delays in repairing leaks at the property, and unauthorised entry by the landlord and tradespeople employed by it. The tenant’s evidence was largely uncontested by the landlord.
These premises were constructed in 2021 but have had some serious issues with plumbing and leaks, with the result that the shower had to be completely replaced in 2023. It took 73 days for the shower issue to be properly investigated and resolved. It took 90 days for a subsequent issue with a water valve to investigated and resolved, and a further 64 days for a third leaking issue to be investigated and the cause determined. The delays in responding to leaks lead to mould growth and damage to the premises. There was also an issue with the heat pump not working properly for a month in winter.
In relation to the valve issue, the landlord’s maintenance team denied there was any issue with the premises and blamed the tenant’s washing machine for what 1 This is consistent with the s16A(5) RTA where an agent appointed by an overseas landlord has all the rights and obligations of the landlord as against the tenant and the Tribunal has held that the agent is liable to the tenant see Van der Beek v Harcourts Advantage Realty Ltd [2015] NZTT Tauranga 1041. Ms Ranger described as a “major issue behind the wall in the laundry area.” The tenants had to have their own contractor investigate and that person quickly identified the leaking valve and sodden wall and insulation.
The evidence and record of communication shows that the first employee of the landlord assigned to manage this tenancy demonstrated a lack or urgency or professionalism towards the tenants. Texts went unanswered, the tenants had to follow up multiple times before they received any response, which led to repairs taking longer than they should have. For clarity, this was not Ms Ranger.
Contractors engaged by the landlord entered the premises multiple times without proper notice. Ms Ranger assured the Tribunal that she had made the maintenance team/contractors aware of notice requirements but conceded that some did not follow the correct procedures. The landlord is responsible for its contractors. Alternatively, the landlord could have notified the tenant of intended visits to the property. The evidence establishes multiple breaches, in March or April, on 8 May, 10 May, 17 May, 18 September, late October/early November.
One of the tenants is employed on shift work. The intrusions became so concerning for her that she was not able to sleep when she had worked through the night as she did not know if/when the landlord’s contractors would turn up.
[The tenant/s] that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these 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.
The tenants also claimed the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants also claim that the ongoing repairs, unannounced arrival by contractors, unauthorised entry and general conduct of the landlord breached their right to quiet use and enjoyment of the premises.
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 tenant’s claims are inter-related, each alleged breach relates to the same factual background of delays investigating and repairing significant leaks and failure to give proper notice of entry when repairs were going to be done. The tenant’s claims are proved.
The tenant’s modest compensation claims of $132.00 for out-of-pocket expenses were established. I have awarded total compensation of $2,500 for loss of amenity throughout the tenancy. That sum includes recognition of the impact of unauthorised access on the tenant’s ability to rest after night shifts.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 find that the landlord has committed unlawful acts, as claimed. The tenant’s requests for notification before access were largely ignored, despite Ms Ranger’s instructions to the landlord’s maintenance team and contractors. The length of time for repairs was unacceptable for a property of this age, especially when there were three major leaking/plumbing issues within a 9-month period. I make a combined award of $1,500 for exemplary damages.
As the tenants were the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee and granted the tenant’s request for suppression of their details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4785579 — net $4,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,020.44

Order

Wolfbrook Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $2,500.00 Exemplary damages $1,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $4,020.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $4,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented by Ms Ranger. The Landlord
There is a preliminary issue regarding the correct landlord party to the application.
The tenancy agreement records that the landlord is Wolfbrook Property Management on behalf of Sandeep Mathur and Sneha Tiwary.
An agent who enters into a contract or tenancy agreement for a disclosed landlord usually acts as an intermediary and is not personally liable.
However, under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 a “landlord” includes an agent, “where appropriate”.
The Tenancy Agreement is on a standard form provided by Wolfbrook Property Management. It records that all rights and obligations of the Landlord are assumed by the Property Manager. 1 It also requires the tenant to direct all communication intended for the Landlord to the Property Manager.
The evidence also establishes that, in this case, Wolfbrook Property Management assumed control for the required repairs and instructed an in- house maintenance team and/or contractors employed by a related business. There is no evidence of the property owner having any involvement in repair decisions.
For those reasons, I find that it is appropriate to recognise Wolfbrook Property Management as the Landlord for this tenancy, and in respect of this application. The Tenant’s Claims
The tenants claim that the landlord breached repair and maintenance obligations, entered the premises without proper notice and interfered with their reasonable peace and quiet. The application also included allegations in relation to the Healthy Homes standards, but these were really claims that the landlord failed to properly repair and maintain the premises.
The tenants provided clear evidence of delays in repairing leaks at the property, and unauthorised entry by the landlord and tradespeople employed by it. The tenant’s evidence was largely uncontested by the landlord.
These premises were constructed in 2021 but have had some serious issues with plumbing and leaks, with the result that the shower had to be completely replaced in 2023. It took 73 days for the shower issue to be properly investigated and resolved. It took 90 days for a subsequent issue with a water valve to investigated and resolved, and a further 64 days for a third leaking issue to be investigated and the cause determined. The delays in responding to leaks lead to mould growth and damage to the premises. There was also an issue with the heat pump not working properly for a month in winter.
In relation to the valve issue, the landlord’s maintenance team denied there was any issue with the premises and blamed the tenant’s washing machine for what 1 This is consistent with the s16A(5) RTA where an agent appointed by an overseas landlord has all the rights and obligations of the landlord as against the tenant and the Tribunal has held that the agent is liable to the tenant see Van der Beek v Harcourts Advantage Realty Ltd [2015] NZTT Tauranga 1041. Ms Ranger described as a “major issue behind the wall in the laundry area.” The tenants had to have their own contractor investigate and that person quickly identified the leaking valve and sodden wall and insulation.
The evidence and record of communication shows that the first employee of the landlord assigned to manage this tenancy demonstrated a lack or urgency or professionalism towards the tenants. Texts went unanswered, the tenants had to follow up multiple times before they received any response, which led to repairs taking longer than they should have. For clarity, this was not Ms Ranger.
Contractors engaged by the landlord entered the premises multiple times without proper notice. Ms Ranger assured the Tribunal that she had made the maintenance team/contractors aware of notice requirements but conceded that some did not follow the correct procedures. The landlord is responsible for its contractors. Alternatively, the landlord could have notified the tenant of intended visits to the property. The evidence establishes multiple breaches, in March or April, on 8 May, 10 May, 17 May, 18 September, late October/early November.
One of the tenants is employed on shift work. The intrusions became so concerning for her that she was not able to sleep when she had worked through the night as she did not know if/when the landlord’s contractors would turn up.
[The tenant/s] that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these 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.
The tenants also claimed the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants also claim that the ongoing repairs, unannounced arrival by contractors, unauthorised entry and general conduct of the landlord breached their right to quiet use and enjoyment of the premises.
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 tenant’s claims are inter-related, each alleged breach relates to the same factual background of delays investigating and repairing significant leaks and failure to give proper notice of entry when repairs were going to be done. The tenant’s claims are proved.
The tenant’s modest compensation claims of $132.00 for out-of-pocket expenses were established. I have awarded total compensation of $2,500 for loss of amenity throughout the tenancy. That sum includes recognition of the impact of unauthorised access on the tenant’s ability to rest after night shifts.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 find that the landlord has committed unlawful acts, as claimed. The tenant’s requests for notification before access were largely ignored, despite Ms Ranger’s instructions to the landlord’s maintenance team and contractors. The length of time for repairs was unacceptable for a property of this age, especially when there were three major leaking/plumbing issues within a 9-month period. I make a combined award of $1,500 for exemplary damages.
As the tenants were the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee and granted the tenant’s request for suppression of their details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785579 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785579 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions