What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786847 about?

The tribunal order states: Slpm Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $412.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4786847?

Compensation: 29 October - 11 Novemb…: $392.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786847?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786847?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10425293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786847 about?

The tribunal order states: Slpm Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $412.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4786847?

Compensation: 29 October - 11 Novemb…: $392.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786847?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786847?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10425293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 103 Salamanca Road, Wellington Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786847 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4786847 — net $412.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: 29 October - 11 November 2023	$392.00	29 October - 11 November 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$412.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$412.44

Order

Slpm Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $412.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
There was a leak during this tenancy and the claims mostly relate to the repair process. The leak was in behind the kitchen wall, between two flats, and it was significant. The leak happened on 29 October 2023 and the landlord, owner and insurer acted to stop the leak and assess the damage. Final repairs, which included replacing the kitchen ceiling, happened in January. The landlord did reduce the rent, but the tenants are not sure that they have been sufficiently compensated. They have also made claims about quiet enjoyment and whether the extraction was Healthy Homes compliant. The question I have to decide are: • Did the landlord breach its duty to repair? • Should the tenants get more compensation? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord breach its duty to repair?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by not repairing the damage from the leak in a timely manner. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants also claim the landlord interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises over this time. See section 38(2) RTA.
These are the tenants’ claims to prove. I have read and considered the evidence provided by both parties. I find the landlord acted promptly in getting the repairs carried out. It seems most likely to me that the January repairs were arranged before the tenants gave their 14 day notice on 2 January because, despite the Christmas break, the repairs started on 16 January. It also seems likely to me that the communication with the tenants over this period of time was poor, and the landlord should have taken steps to find out what was happening and advise the tenants. Overall though, the tenants have not proved the landlord breached section 45 of the RTA. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants get more compensation?

As to compensation, on 29 October the tenants noticed the sound of running water. Their carpet was wet and the paint bubbled on the walls. The next day the plumber stopped the leak. On 31 October Chem Dry were at the property installing dehumidifiers and fans. These ran until 4 November. The rangehood fell off the wall on 5 November. The owner came unannounced on 9 November. The plumbers came unannounced on 10 November and cut a hole in the ceiling, which was there until the ceiling was replaced in January. Insurance assessors were also at the flat over this two-week period. The tenants received around $98 in back dated compensation for this period of time, after they raised the issue with the landlord in December. That equates to 10% of the weekly rent.
I find this compensation to be on the light side. There was a lot happening for the tenants in those two weeks. I find there was a loss of amenity and a loss of quiet enjoyment. I find 50% of the weekly rent for the two weeks to be a fair amount of compensation, taking lost time, inconvenience, and uncertainty into account. I have calculated this as $490 compensation less the $98 already paid leaving an amount owing to the tenants of $392.
I find the 10% compensation credited to the tenants for the rest of the tenancy to be reasonable. I also find the 50% compensation allowed for the week the ceiling was replaced to be reasonable.
The tenants claimed compensation for a replacement rug and salt and pepper shakers. This claim is not proved because I have not been provided with any evidence to show the value of these items or replacement cost. These claims are dismissed.

Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

Exemplary damages can be ordered as a type of penalty against the landlord for breaches of the RTA. While I have found there was a breach of quiet enjoyment in the two weeks after the flood, that resulted from the loss of amenity rather than from any harassment by the landlord or owner. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim the landlord breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). They consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard, which requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The tenants said they were concerned the extractor fan in the bathroom did not work properly and they were concerned about damp and mould in the flat as a result. Their submission is that this was raised with the landlord at their first inspection and never fixed. The landlord said this was fixed and had a note from one of the inspection which states that the dryer door was fixed and “all is well”. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. They did not have any better evidence than the landlord, so this claim is not proved.
There was an issue with the rangehood which fell off the wall and was not replaced during the tenancy. I find this part of the kitchen repair rather than a breach of the HHS.
The claims for breaches of the HHS are dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4786847 — net $412.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: 29 October - 11 November 2023	$392.00	29 October - 11 November 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$412.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$412.44

Order

Slpm Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $412.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
There was a leak during this tenancy and the claims mostly relate to the repair process. The leak was in behind the kitchen wall, between two flats, and it was significant. The leak happened on 29 October 2023 and the landlord, owner and insurer acted to stop the leak and assess the damage. Final repairs, which included replacing the kitchen ceiling, happened in January. The landlord did reduce the rent, but the tenants are not sure that they have been sufficiently compensated. They have also made claims about quiet enjoyment and whether the extraction was Healthy Homes compliant. The question I have to decide are: • Did the landlord breach its duty to repair? • Should the tenants get more compensation? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord breach its duty to repair?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by not repairing the damage from the leak in a timely manner. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants also claim the landlord interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises over this time. See section 38(2) RTA.
These are the tenants’ claims to prove. I have read and considered the evidence provided by both parties. I find the landlord acted promptly in getting the repairs carried out. It seems most likely to me that the January repairs were arranged before the tenants gave their 14 day notice on 2 January because, despite the Christmas break, the repairs started on 16 January. It also seems likely to me that the communication with the tenants over this period of time was poor, and the landlord should have taken steps to find out what was happening and advise the tenants. Overall though, the tenants have not proved the landlord breached section 45 of the RTA. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants get more compensation?

As to compensation, on 29 October the tenants noticed the sound of running water. Their carpet was wet and the paint bubbled on the walls. The next day the plumber stopped the leak. On 31 October Chem Dry were at the property installing dehumidifiers and fans. These ran until 4 November. The rangehood fell off the wall on 5 November. The owner came unannounced on 9 November. The plumbers came unannounced on 10 November and cut a hole in the ceiling, which was there until the ceiling was replaced in January. Insurance assessors were also at the flat over this two-week period. The tenants received around $98 in back dated compensation for this period of time, after they raised the issue with the landlord in December. That equates to 10% of the weekly rent.
I find this compensation to be on the light side. There was a lot happening for the tenants in those two weeks. I find there was a loss of amenity and a loss of quiet enjoyment. I find 50% of the weekly rent for the two weeks to be a fair amount of compensation, taking lost time, inconvenience, and uncertainty into account. I have calculated this as $490 compensation less the $98 already paid leaving an amount owing to the tenants of $392.
I find the 10% compensation credited to the tenants for the rest of the tenancy to be reasonable. I also find the 50% compensation allowed for the week the ceiling was replaced to be reasonable.
The tenants claimed compensation for a replacement rug and salt and pepper shakers. This claim is not proved because I have not been provided with any evidence to show the value of these items or replacement cost. These claims are dismissed.

Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

Exemplary damages can be ordered as a type of penalty against the landlord for breaches of the RTA. While I have found there was a breach of quiet enjoyment in the two weeks after the flood, that resulted from the loss of amenity rather than from any harassment by the landlord or owner. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim the landlord breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). They consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard, which requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The tenants said they were concerned the extractor fan in the bathroom did not work properly and they were concerned about damp and mould in the flat as a result. Their submission is that this was raised with the landlord at their first inspection and never fixed. The landlord said this was fixed and had a note from one of the inspection which states that the dryer door was fixed and “all is well”. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. They did not have any better evidence than the landlord, so this claim is not proved.
There was an issue with the rangehood which fell off the wall and was not replaced during the tenancy. I find this part of the kitchen repair rather than a breach of the HHS.
The claims for breaches of the HHS are dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786847 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 103 Salamanca Road, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786847 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 103 Salamanca Road, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach its duty to repair?

Should the tenants get more compensation?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach its duty to repair?

Should the tenants get more compensation?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions