What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4804346 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] owes [The landlord/s] and [The property owners] $9,189.00 (the

How much money was awarded in case 4804346?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $12,949.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804346?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804346?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10959738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4804346 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] owes [The landlord/s] and [The property owners] $9,189.00 (the

How much money was awarded in case 4804346?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $12,949.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804346?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804346?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10959738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4804346 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804346 — net $9,189.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$12,949.00		Rent arrears
Compensation		$2,000.00	Compensation
Total award	$12,949.00	$2,000.00
Net award	$9,189.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,189.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804346 — net $9,189.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$12,949.00		Rent arrears
Compensation		$2,000.00	Compensation
Total award	$12,949.00	$2,000.00
Net award	$9,189.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,189.00

Order

[The tenant/s] owes [The landlord/s] and [The property owners] $9,189.00 (the debt) in accordance with the following table:
[The tenant/s] must pay the debt in order 2 at the rate of $350 per fortnight.
The first payment must be made today, and payments must continue every Wednesday until the debt is paid in full.
If [The tenant/s] fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented [The property manager/s].
This was a relatively short tenancy, in place between April 2023 and February 2024. It commenced with [Property management company 1] initiating and managing the tenancy until May 2023 when [The property owner] and his former partner, the owners, took over management. Their reason for doing so was failings with [Property management company 1].
The tenancy had commenced with various maintenance issues which [Property management company 1] were working on. They advised [The tenant/s] on 6 May of the change in management and told her she would be hearing from [The property owner] or his then partner with the new bank account details. Those details were not provided, despite [The tenant/s] emailing twice asking for them. [The tenant/s] paid no further rent.
On 18 January 2024 [The property manager/s] took over management of the tenancy which ended five weeks later.
The amount in rent arrears is agreed and the bond has been paid to [The property owner] in part payment of that debt.
[The tenant/s] has applied for compensation for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which were discussed in the hearing today. This decision confirms my findings as advised at the hearing and confirms the figure payable in compensation. That amount is to be paid by way of offset to the rent arrears debt.
The parties have agreed to a payment plan for [The tenant/s]to pay off the debt. Issues with communication
The first issue [The tenant/s] has is with the lack of engagement she received from [The property owner] and his partner after they took over management of the tenancy. The evidence substantiates that she sent them two emails on 4 July and 2 August after she had not heard from them. No replies were sent, and the bank account details were not provided.
Both parties say they attempted to contact the other by phone, but neither was successful.
Section 13A(4) of the RTA states: If anything changes so that the information that was included in the tenancy agreement in accordance with subsection (2) or that was provided in accordance with subsection (3) or this subsection is no longer correct, the landlord must provide the correct information in writing to the tenant within a reasonable time after the landlord becomes aware of the change.
Section 16 of the RTA states that when the name and contact address, including mobile telephone number or email address, or the address for service for one of the parties to the tenancy agreement changes, they must provide notice of these changes to the other party within 10 working days.
I am satisfied that neither of these provisions were complied with by the landlord. The effect on [The tenant/s] was that she was unsettled and unsure. She had no meaningful landlord point of contact for the majority of the tenancy. I address monetary orders below. Issues with maintenance
[The tenant/s] had concerns regarding the following maintenance: a. Windows were broken and did not have appropriate seals. b. A corner of rot developed in the bathroom. c. Plants grew inside the property. d. There was a water leak through the power box. e. The lawns and gardens were not maintained.
Under section 45 of the RTA a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes compliance with Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
As discussed at the hearing the evidence substantiates the following: i. The bathroom window was broken at the commencement of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] raised this with [Property management company 1] and it was fixed. There however remained issues with it but [The tenant/s] did not raise them again with [Property management company 1] nor with [The property owner]. ii. The kitchen window did not have complete draught stopping however [The tenant/s] did not raise this and the HHS report compiled 28 March 2023 did not raise it as an issue either. iii. Some rot developed in the bathroom over the course of the tenancy but was not reported. iv. Plants grew inside the building, but this was not reported.
Accordingly, [The tenant/s] claims with respect to these issues are dismissed. A landlord cannot remedy what they are not aware of.
It is agreed that some items of rubbish were left on the premise which should not have been and were not removed. It is also agreed that the lawns were the landlord’s responsibility and were not attended to. The impact of this on [The tenant/s] was that the site was difficult to manage, an embarrassment and due to the long grass local dogs used the site as a toilet which was smelly.
This is a breach of section 45 and I address monetary orders below.
The second issue is with respect to a leak from the internal power box. [The tenant/s] experienced water and signs of water coming into the house through the power box which was positioned just above the bed. She reported this to [Property management company 1] and they sent an electrician. He investigated and was satisfied as to the safety of the power box but confirmed there was a leak.
A roofer subsequently attended who did a short-term patch and advised the roof should be replaced before long. The evidence substantiates that [The tenant/s] was not advised of these repairs, specifically she was not advised that there was no electrical risk. [The tenant/s] says the leak continued after the repair.
[The tenant/s] did notify [The property owner] directly of the issue in two emails however nothing further was done. She says that given she was not aware of the fixes nor the professional advice and was not receiving a response from [The property owner], she remained worried about the potential for electrical issues. Further, her bedside table was damaged by the leak.
[The tenant/s] was not advised of the repairs and she actively notified [The property owner] of the continuing issue with no response. This is a breach of section 45. I discuss monetary orders below.

What monetary orders should be made?

As above, I find that the landlord has breached section 45 of the RTA by failing to maintain the lawns and gardens and failing to investigate and repair the leak. I also find they have failed to provide correct details and respond to [The tenant/s]. I therefore turn to [The tenant/s] claim for compensation.
Not every breach of the RTA will incur an order for damages and the factors considered by the Tribunal in such an assessment are the nature of the breach, the effect on the parties, the reasoning, the extent and the duration.
Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case, it is not an exact exercise, and a commonsense approach is required. Further, that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
This Tribunal has ruled in previous cases that as a general proposition a leak is a serious matter and must be repaired promptly. Leaks go to the very essence of a tenant’s right to the use and enjoyment of the premises in consideration of the rent that the tenant pays. A leak is not a mere inconvenience; it creates an undesirable and unhealthy living environment.
The Tribunal has the authority 1 to award damages for stress and inconvenience. It does so on the basis that the law of contract allows such damages where the purpose or one of the purposes of the contract is the peace and comfort of the party and, in the case of a tenant, that is regarded as one of the purposes of a tenancy agreement.
Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
As a starting point the Tribunal adopts the position that a tenancy agreement involves a relationship: relationships are rarely smooth and a tenant must expect some disruption or inconvenience from to time to time. Inevitably there is likely to be disruption when a tenancy approaches its end, even if both parties act entirely lawfully. Commonly there is disagreement and negotiation and often this is because of disagreement over rights and obligations. Some degree of anxiety and stress has been considered an inevitable corollary to rights based on promises, and a contracting party has traditionally been deemed to take the risk. Accordingly, when considering the level of damages to award, it is well established that where the loss suffered is intangible, awards must be kept modest.
Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 is a previous case which suggests appropriate bands where making awards for 1 77(2)(n) RTA emotional harm damages. Those amounts have been increased in the 2022 Tribunal case A v Singh 2 to take into account inflation: “A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
[The tenant/s] submission in favour of compensation is summarised as follows: a. She did not get the tenancy she thought she had contracted for. b. The lack of engagement from the landlord made her lose faith in their ability to address their obligations which was dispiriting. c. She felt unheard and let down. d. She could not use the property as she had intended and stayed there less than she had intended, instead choosing to stay elsewhere. e. It was as scary situation to be in.
The landlord makes an offer of $2000 compensation. They say as mitigating factors: a. They have been without the rent for a considerable amount of time and the rate at which they have agreed to have it repaid at will mean they are still out of pocket for some time to come. b. They accept the failings and apologise for them. c. The landlord had personal issues during the period which whilst not an excuse, do go some way to explain why they were not able to meet their obligations fully over this period.
Having taken into account the law, the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I find that the landlord’s offer of $2,000 is reasonable in the circumstances. Both parties were dealing with challenging conditions over this period, and both are still dealing with the repercussions.
I direct that all party identifying details be suppressed from the published order pursuant to section 95A of the RTA given a majority of this order is made by consent. 2 [2022] NZTT Auckland 4315225
I thank the parties for their honest and amicable engagement with the proceedings and trust that this decision gives them both the closure to move on from this challenging tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804346 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804346 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What monetary orders should be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What monetary orders should be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions