What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4800251 about?

The tribunal order states: Meta Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,974.34

How much money was awarded in case 4800251?

Cleaning: $776.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $542.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $207.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800251?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10333946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4800251 about?

The tribunal order states: Meta Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,974.34

How much money was awarded in case 4800251?

Cleaning: $776.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $542.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $207.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800251?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10333946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 17 Gardner Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4800251 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800251 — net $1,974.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$207.14		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$776.25		Cleaning
Compensation	$542.71		Compensation
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$2,880.00	Section 45
Exemplary damages: Section 48		$600.00	Section 48
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,526.10	$3,500.44
Net award		$1,974.34
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,974.34

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800251 — net $1,974.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$207.14		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$776.25		Cleaning
Compensation	$542.71		Compensation
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$2,880.00	Section 45
Exemplary damages: Section 48		$600.00	Section 48
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,526.10	$3,500.44
Net award		$1,974.34
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,974.34

Order

Meta Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,974.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenants and landlord.
Five of the co-tenants appeared at the hearing. Heng (Amy) Luan appeared also, but there was no appearance by Meta Property Management Limited.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the tenancy address as 1/17 Gardner Rd, Epsom, Auckland. The agent for the landlord is recorded as Meta Property Management Limited, but the name of the landlord is not otherwise recorded. There are 6 co-tenants named (as recorded above). The property manager was initially Ken Dai, and then Anna Liu.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy commencing on 28 February 2022, due to end on 27 February 2023. The rental was $1,450.00 per week, and the tenants paid a bond of $5,800.00.
One of the notable features of the dwelling, is that the premises are broadly a square shape, and in the middle of the building is a fully enclosed courtyard. The courtyard area can only be accessed via the dwelling. It is the case that at some point in time a roof was installed over the courtyard, and the floor raised with a laminate flooring or lino / vinyl or similar installed which matches the height and appearance of the floors in the kitchen at least. There is a sharp difference of opinion between the parties around whether this ‘courtyard’ area was in fact a lounge (in the sense of being an internal part of the house) which is the tenant’s position, or whether it remained an external courtyard, albeit a covered one which is the landlords position.
As will also be noted below, during the tenancy there was a water leak in the courtyard / lounge area. This was raised with the property manager, but the tenants do not consider that the concerns were actioned with adequate speed.
In any event, in August 2022 the landlord commenced work on the courtyard / lounge roof, to have a second roof constructed over the top of the existing (leaking) roof to address the leak.
On 3 October 2022, the Auckland City Council issued the landlord a Notice to Fix (NTF) in relation to the covering of the roof of the internal courtyard, installing the second roof over the original courtyard roof, and creation of a second dwelling in the former garage (not part of this tenancy). The landlord was required by the Council to remove the alterations and return the premises to its prior consented state.
Around January 2023 the landlord applied to the Council for a Certificate of Acceptance in relation to the courtyard works (thus making the works lawful), but the Council declined that application.
The tenants state that during the tenancy the landlord would also show up and enter the premises without consent, that is one of the claims they present.
This matter was first scheduled for a hearing on 7 February 2024. The adjudicator adjourned that hearing as it was clear that the owner needed to be joined as a respondent, and further that morning the landlord had filed a claim against the tenants.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Healthy Homes Standards and Maintenance

The tenant’s position is that the premises were not compliant with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes) Regulations (HHS). The tenants state that the roof in the premises were leaking, and this was raised with the landlord. The tenants referred to a video shown to the Tribunal showing a leak in the ‘lounge’ ceiling, supported also by photographs showing water on the floor.
The tenants consider that the landlord did not adequately address the leak in the roof, referring to a text message from 30 May where this was raised with the property manager. A follow up text message was sent on 13 June by the tenants, with the property manager stating a plumber would come the next day. However when the roof was not repaired, another text was sent on 23 July, and the property manager then replying that same day referring the tenants to the owner.
The tenants consider there has been a failure to maintain, and failure to comply with the HHS (moisture ingress), and failure to comply with obligations under buildings, health and safety.
In response, the landlord says that the tenants are lying because the premises are in the shape of a square, and the area of the water leak is an outdoors area, a sunroom. The landlord says that a previous tenant had taken the landlord to the Tenancy Tribunal, and as a result the council went to the house and reported that it was compliant (but not evidence of that has been presented in this hearing).
The landlord considers that the issues with the water coming into the premises is the result of heavy rain. The landlord states there was no leaking in the area when she was living there.
I raised with the tenants that the landlord’s position is that this was an outdoor area. The tenants say that when they viewed the premises this area was represented to them as being a living room, there were couches and a television an clock consistent with a living room. Further there was no other space in the dwelling that could have been used as a living room space.
I asked the landlord where the living room would be, if the central area was not the living room. The landlord states that tenants could use another larger room for that. Analysis
The first matter I must consider, is whether the central enclosed area is a courtyard as the landlord described it, or a lounge as the tenants describe it. This will be a critical finding given a number of the claims currently before the Tribunal, because the landlords obligations are different as far as internal parts of the premises are concerned, compared with exterior.
For the reasons that follow, I find on balance that the central area is an internal lounge area.
The best evidence for the landlord is the Trademe listing for the premises, which described the premises as follows: A lovely house that offers spacious open plan living, modern design kitchen. It has 6 good size bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, I living and with fabulous indoor-outdoor flow to a private courtyard area.
In this listing the landlord has described the relevant area as a courtyard area.
However, I accept the evidence given by the tenants at the hearing, that when they viewed the premises this area was marketed as being a lounge. I found the tenants to be honest in their evidence. I am minded that during the hearing the tenants readily made concessions that did not support their case, and voluntarily accepted liability for various claims from the landlord that the landlord did not advance at the hearing, that gave me confidence in accepting their oral evidence.
There was other evidence which supports a conclusion that the premises were marketed as a lounge, and viewed by the landlord to be a lounge. That include the following:
Firstly the landlord has provided inspection photographs, where the landlord has called the central area a lounge. For example:
Secondly this area presents as being part of the internal dwelling given the appearance of the floor matching other area in the house, and the fact it is fully enclosed with lounge like furniture provided by the landlord.
Thirdly the landlord has clearly undertaken work to raise and enclose the floor and cover the ceiling, moving it away from being an open courtyard.
Fourthly, when the landlord applied to the Council for a Certificate of Acceptance, the landlord provided an ‘as built’ plan and that shows that central area and describes it as “Living – lounge (previously courtyard)”. This strongly suggest that the landlord intended and believed that area to be a living and lounge area.
Fifthly, the landlord has rented the premises as a six bedroom tenancy. I cannot see any other shared room that would be of sufficient size for a living room.
For those reasons I find by a comfortable margin that the central area is likely to have been represented to the tenants as being a living/lounge area, and an internal part of the tenancy dwelling – not an external courtyard as suggested by the landlord.

Has there been any breach on the part of the landlord?

Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, and that includes that the landlord must: a. Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards; and c. Comply with all requirements in relation to buildings, health and safety.
I am satisfied that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45 for these reasons.
Whether or not the roof that had been installed over the previous courtyard was compliant with the Building Act, clearly it was leaking. I am not persuaded that this was simply an issue related to a one-time weather event like Cyclone Gabrielle, because the contemporaneous evidence supports a conclusion that the leaking was occurring over a period of time. I can see from the communications provided to the property manager, that the tenants raised this leaking on a number of occasions, and I can also see that the landlord did not action the leak in a timely way. The tenants needed to contact the landlord on a number of occasions, and given it was a water ingress issue, should have been done quickly. To that extent, the landlord has not reasonably maintained the premises.
The tenants further submitted that there had been a breach of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”). The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Given the leaking that has occurred, presumably from the guttering catching water draining toward the internal enclosed courtyard, I am satisfied in concluding that the HHS requirement for moisture ingress and drainage has not been met. I am also minded that there is insufficient evidence to show that there was a ground moisture barrier underneath the now enclosed courtyard floor.
As it relates to buildings, health and safety, the landlord was required to meet her obligations under the Building Act, and on the evidence the landlord has not done this. There is convincing evidence that the work undertaken to enclose the courtyard did not comply with the Building Act, hence the NTF issued by the Council. While the position taken by the landlord at the hearing was that no consent was needed, and the premises would meet the necessary legal criteria, she has not proven that. The landlord has provided no evidence to counter the findings reached by the Council as set out on the Council documentation on file.
The Tribunal must now consider whether to order exemplary damages for the section 45 breach.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
Taking those factors into consideration, I conclude as follows: a. In my assessment, it was likely that the landlord was aware that the premises had been converted so that the central courtyard area was lounge, and that this was done without the necessary legal approval. I am satisfied the breach on the part of the landlord was intentional, and undertaken in a way to maximise rental earnings from the tenants. b. The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenants lived in premises that did not comply with the minimum building and health standards, the premises were leaking, I accept that caused dampness. c. There are strong interests for tenants to live in the premises that are dry and healthy, and meet the necessary building standards. d. There is also strong public interest for tenants to live in compliant dwellings. e. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages in this case.
Taking into account the detriment faced by the tenants, including that the landlord was slow to act on the continuing leak in the premises, I have determined that exemplary damages at 40% of the maximum would be indicated, so order the landlords to pay $2,880.00. Unlawful entry
The tenants state that over the tenancy there were multiple instances where the landlord would come into the tenancy. At the hearing, the tenants showed a video of the landlord in the ‘courtyard’. The tenants stated that the only way to access the courtyard was through the house.
The tenants state there were three situations that would occur where the landlord would enter the premises after: a. Knocking and the tenants letting her in; or b. The landlord knocks and then letting herself in; or c. And the landlord coming and letting herself in unannounced.
The landlord states that the furniture at the premises was hers. I asked the landlord if she let herself into the tenancy, and the landlord states she did not ever do that.
The landlord states that every time she when there, she could only go in if the tenants opened the door, and the tenants are wanting to sabotage her. Analysis
Section 48 of the RTA sets out the obligations around landlords’ entry to the premises. In short, the landlord can only enter the premises as follows: a. At any time (without notice) if there is an emergency; or b. After providing the tenants notice of the intended entry; or c. With the provision of the tenants given freely at the time of the entry.
In this case, the evidence strongly favours a conclusion that the landlord would enter the premises without notice or permission from the tenants, and in circumstances that are not an emergency.
I do not accept the landlord statement that she did not enter the premises unlawfully, and I note the contemporaneous text message conversations from the tenants with the property manager, which does support and entry without the necessary authority.
On 11 January (presumably 2023) the tenants sent a text message to the property manager stating in part: Hey Anna, in the past week Amy and this younger man that is always with her have repeatedly showed up at the flat and entered into our property without our consent all the required 48 hours notice. Amy has even opened our front door and walked in. And when I say walked in I mean that she has literally walked into our flat through the front door without even looking as if it were her own home. This is a serious breach of our privacy and is simply illegal for her to be doing. This must stop otherwise we will be left with no other choice to call the police the next time she shows up. This is very disturbing and disrespectful given the fact that we have let her conduct so many inspections on our house throughout the year and for her to show up unannounced is ridiculous. Please forward this message to Amy.
I am also seriously concerned at another text message provided by the tenants from 14 July 2022 stating: Hey Ken, [Tenant 1] here from 1/17 gardner road. Today we arrived back to the flat, I politely asked the landlord when the roof will be fixed seeing as it’s still leaking heavily. She continued to follow us to the front door, pick up a piece of wood and slam it on the ground and then ran at me and punched me, the builder had to grab her and pull her away from me. This is unacceptable behaviour from her and I think she needs a serious talking to about her actions and n out fixing our roof when we have continuously said it’s leaking.
Again I accept by a comfortable margin that it is likely the landlord has unlawfully entered the premises, which is deemed to be an unlawful act under the RTA, and so subject to an order for exemplary damages.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a breach of section 48 on the part of the landlord, is $1,500.00.
Again taking the section 109 factors into account: a. I consider it likely that the landlord has intentionally entered the premises, and would likely have been aware that she needed consent or to have provided notice, to lawfully enter. b. There was a significant effect for the tenants, in that their privacy and quiet enjoyment has been breached by the landlord. c. There is a very strong interest for tenants, and the public generally, that landlords do not enter Tenancy premises without authority. d. In the circumstances, it would be just to make an order.
Again I have determined that an exemplary damages order at 40% of the maximum would be reasonable. The evidence is that this unlawful entry occurred on a number of occasions, and there are other aggravating features such as the January 2023 email, in relation to the landlord’s behaviour and aggression toward the tenants. There was some indication at the hearing today of that aggression, such as the landlord arriving at the hearing and taking a photograph of the tenants stating that she “hated” them. I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages for unlawful entry of $600.00. Unlawful residential premises
The tenant’s position is that the premises were unlawful residential premises. The tenants referred to the NTF provided by the Council, which records that the works undertaken at the tenancy was completed without a building consent, including: a. Construction of a veranda to cover the courtyard and create a lounge. b. Construction of framing over that courtyard covering (the second roof build during the tenancy) c. Converting the premises from a 4 to 6 bedroom dwelling and adding a bathroom.
Further the tenants say that they cannot find any building consent to convert the dwelling from 4 to 6 bedrooms, or the conversion of the ‘courtyard’ area to the lounge.
In response the landlord says that the roof is not entirely sealed so it’s still a veranda. The purpose of the second roof was to elevate the area for drainage. The landlord states that as long as there is airflow, council consent is not required. The landlord says that currently the council is approving this sort of work without consent needed. The landlord states that when she brought the property it was legal.
My impression from the landlord’s response is that she believes that there has been no breach of building obligations.
I asked the landlord why the Council would have given the landlord a notice to fix if the works were legal? The landlord said that she thinks the Council believed it was work to an internal area (which would need consent). The builder recommended that she apply for a Certificate of Acceptance.
The landlord states that the third bathroom was in the tenancy when it was purchased. Analysis
The tenants have claimed back the rent paid for the premises, on the ground at the premises are unlawful residential premises.
Section 78A of the RTA gives the Tenancy Tribunal power to make a range of orders if the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the premises are or were at any material time “unlawful residential premises”. 1 “Unlawful residential premises” is defined as: “Residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but – (a) That cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes which that person is granted occupation), and (b) Where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c) has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
Section 36 of the RTA states that the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for unlawful purposes.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA provides that the landlord must comply with all requirements and respect of buildings, health and safety and any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, I have discussed that above.
The public policy behind the introduction of section 78A was to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were, for example, unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been subject to the need to meet legal requirements to ensure their health and safe occupation by tenants. In moving that the bill relating to section 78A be read a first time in parliament, the Hon Dr Nick Smith stated: ...There have been examples around the country of garages or other properties that are being rented out that do not go anywhere near meeting the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act but where there are limitations on our new compliance teams being able to enforce them because of that jurisdiction issue. My view is that the amendments in this bill that make it plain that the tribunal has full jurisdiction over unlawful residential premises will strengthen the 1 I note that this section only applies after August 2019, after the tenancy had been underway for over four years. regulatory environment and ensure that those people who attempt to rent out such properties are held accountable. 2
The Tribunal is obliged to take a strict approach in such situations, because of the serious risk involved. If there had been a fire, for instance, in the premises, the consequences not just for the tenants but also for the landlord, could have been very serious, including loss of life. That kind of scenario indicates how seriously the Tenancy Tribunal must approach these situations and is no doubt why Parliament has facilitated severe sanctions in the RTA for renting out premises that are unlawful. 3
The “step one” after determining whether premises are unlawful is that there needs to first be a finding that the property cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. This first step involves making a finding that the whole of the property has some sort of regulatory failure which means it cannot be occupied as a residential dwelling. The unlawfulness must be more than, say, just an outstanding permit for a bathroom. 4
In this case I have determined that the tenants have not established this first step, that is they have not proven that the premises cannot be lawfully used for residential purposes. Infact the evidence strongly shows the opposite. The tenants accept that the premises are a house, a consented four-bedroom house, and they could be lawfully used for residential purposes. While I accept that the premises have been unlawfully changed to be a 6 bedroom house, and that the courtyard has been covered in, that does not change the fact that the premises could be lawfully used for residential purpose.
I find therefore that the tenants have not established that these are unlawful premises under section 78A.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

2 See also The Hon Phil Twyford: “This bill aims to strengthen the powers for prosecuting landlords who have rented out unsuitable accommodation, such as garages, warehouses, and industrial buildings. There was one very notable case—I think it was 61 Molesworth Street—where, at the time of the Wellington earthquakes, the ratbag owner of that building had rented out a lot of that commercial space to tenants. They were found to be living not only in kind of unsafe and unsuitable accommodation but— what the bill points out is that if people are not in premises that are consented for residential purposes, then landlords cannot be held to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.” 3 Noted in North v Hunt [2021] NZTT 429579 at [30] and [31]. 4 See Mansfield v Silk and another [2020] NZ TT 4246581 at [16].

The claim filed for the landlord sought rent arrears and compensation for damage to the premises and cleaning. Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears of $207.14, which is for the final day of rent arrears. The tenants agree that that they owe the final day of rent arrears.
This is ordered by consent of the parties. Damage to premises
The landlord has claimed for damage to the premises. At the hearing the landlord described a range of damage, but then confirmed that the only damage she was claiming from the tenants related to the claim for work on the roof. I took it to be that the remaining damages claims were withdrawn.
The landlord claims that the second roof was removed for the tenants, which the landlord states cost more than $20,000 for building and other professional costs, and the tenants should pay for this. I raised with the landlord that my understanding was that the roof was removed by order of the Council from the NTF? The landlord states the roof was installed for the tenants, and the tenants should have left the premises when she asked them to. I understand that the landlord believes she should have been allowed to obtain a Certificate of Acceptance rather than simply removing the roof. The landlord states that she told the tenants it was an outdoor area, and plastic boxes were delivered to catch the water leaks.
The landlord states there was other damage but the only damage she was claiming at the hearing was compensation for the roof.
The tenants stated in response that they did not ask for a second roof to be constructed, they only asked the landlord to fix the leak. They do not see how they could be liable for the cost of the roof construction. The tenants state the roof needed to be removed because it was built without consent, and had the landlord got the consent in the first place, she would not have needed to have the roof removed. The tenants state the first they knew about the second roof, was when the builders attended to construct the second roof.
The landlord maintains that the issues with the water leak was from the weather. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order that the tenants pay her compensation for the construction of the second roof, and presumably its removal.
I cannot see any basis upon which this could be ordered. On the evidence available this work was unlawful, as demonstrated by the Council communications to the landlord.
Despite that fact, the tenants have no legal obligation to pay for building works to the tenancy. Clearly the second roof was installed by the landlord in an effort to stop the first roof from leaking, that would be the landlord’s responsibility given the premises had been rented to the tenants with that area as a lounge.
The tenants cannot be liable for any costs associated with the removal of the second (or first) roof, because it was the Council that ordered the roof be removed.
This claim from the landlord is dismissed. Cleaning
The landlord’s final claim relates to cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice for professional cleaning of $776.25. The tenants agree that they should pay this, it is ordered by consent.
I note that at this point the tenants also advised there were other costs that they agreed they should pay to the landlord, being damage to the premises, and the tenants invited me to include these in today’s order. In particular a. Compensation for damage to three blue office chairs ($150.00) b. Tressle table($158.70) c. Bar chair ($80.00) d. Fridge repair ($63.71) e. Fridge door ($50.00) f. Missing keys ($40.00).
These costs total $542.41 and are ordered by consent of the tenants.
At this point of the hearing, the landlord advised she wanted to claim the other damage originally claimed. I declined to hear those claims, because the landlord was given an opportunity to advance those claims when we addressed her damage claim, and she advised that the damage claim was limited to her claim for compensation for the roof. To put that another way, I considered the landlord to have withdrawn the further damages claims.
I am minded that if it were not for the tenants voluntarily offering to pay this further compensation, the hearing would have been closed following the cleaning claim being addressed.

FILING FEE

The tenants have been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenants have been substantially successful in the application, so name suppression for the tenants is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800251 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 17 Gardner Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800251 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 17 Gardner Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has there been any breach on the part of the landlord?

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has there been any breach on the part of the landlord?

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions