What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4815157 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4815157?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815157?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10340270-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4815157 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4815157?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815157?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10340270-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4815157 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4815157 — net $3,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$2,000.00	failure to maintain
Compensation: loss of amenity	$1,500.00	loss of amenity
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$3,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the property manager and tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,500.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: failure to maintain$2,000.00 Compensation: loss of amenity$1,500.00 Filing fee$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,520.44
The applications for work orders are withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied to compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises. Failure to Maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must 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.
This tenancy has been in place since 22 April 2022, the rent is $910.00 per week.
The tenants include three generations of the same family. Each of the adults suffer various health conditions, which impact on their day to day lives to various degrees. Most significant is [The tenant/s], who was recuperating from a very serious workplace accident which took place in June 2022. [The tenant/s] is also a solo parent to three daughters.
The parties agree that: a. In June 2023, the tenants advised the landlord that the power switch for the oven was sparking, the hob didn’t work and the rangehood needed repair. b. The landlord arranged for contractors to view and assess the damage. c. The first electrician to attend taped the power switch and advised the tenants not to use it as it was not safe to do so. d. Two other contractors assessed the issues to provide quotes for repair. e. The landlord sent those details to the property owner, who said that he would attend to the repairs. f. The landlord emailed the tenants to tell them the quotes have been sent and they would “...get back to you ASAP.” g. In the inspection in late November/early December the tenants told the property manager that the oven was still not working. h. On 27 December 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord to say that the toilet need repair and reminded them about the oven. i. A further quote to repair was sent to the property owner on 7 January 2024. The property manager followed this up with the owner to prompt action. j. The property managers asked the contractors to remain in touch with the tenants about the progress with repairs. k. On 7 February 2024 a 14-day notice to remedy was sent to the landlord. l. The oven switch and the hob were replaced/repaired on 23 February 2024. m. The cost of repairs was a little more than the equivalent of one weeks’ rent.
The landlord notes that some of the delay between the 27 December email and the repairs was sourcing the appropriate part for the oven. Further the landlord notes that the tenant did not report that the oven had not been repaired until the inspection in November/December, despite ongoing contact about other things.
However, no explanation has been proffered for the remainder of the delays.
I consider that 8 months is a significant day in repairing an essential appliance, the landlord has failed to maintain the property as required by section 45. Accordingly, I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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 consider the landlord’s actions must have been intentional. While the property manager passed the necessary information to the property owner in a timely manner, the property owner did not undertake repairs for 8 months. A delay of this duration cannot be accidental.
The impact on the tenants has been significant. They have been without an oven for 8 months, when they have health conditions which would benefit from proper nutrition. Further, the emotional toll on [The tenant/s] has been particularly acute given the other significant stresses in his life. In addition to this, there was a significant financial cost to alternate meal options.
Finally, I consider there is a public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to tenants, particularly in terms of essential appliances, such cooking appliances.
I consider that the landlord’s actions are aggravated by the duration of the breach. I consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate and I award $2000.00.
Further, I consider, taking into account the additional costs incurred for alternative meal options and the essential nature of the appliance, the tenants are entitled to compensation for loss of amenity. This premises has a significant weekly rent, which the tenants appear to have consistently paid. They were entitled to expect a working oven and Hob. They were without one and this cause additional cost, together with a loss of amenity.
That loss has not been quantified in detail, which is not surprising given the nature of the loss. Instead of trying to quantify that amount in detail, I consider that a nominal award for loss of amenity is appropriate. I award $1,500.00 pursuant to s77(2)(n). Filing Fee
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The tenants sought suppression of their names. As they have been substantially successful in their claim they are entitled to suppression.
In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the property manager having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the Property manager’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be granted as my findings arise from issues with the property owner’s conduct and not the property manager.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4815157 — net $3,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$2,000.00	failure to maintain
Compensation: loss of amenity	$1,500.00	loss of amenity
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$3,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the property manager and tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,500.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: failure to maintain$2,000.00 Compensation: loss of amenity$1,500.00 Filing fee$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,520.44
The applications for work orders are withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied to compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises. Failure to Maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must 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.
This tenancy has been in place since 22 April 2022, the rent is $910.00 per week.
The tenants include three generations of the same family. Each of the adults suffer various health conditions, which impact on their day to day lives to various degrees. Most significant is [The tenant/s], who was recuperating from a very serious workplace accident which took place in June 2022. [The tenant/s] is also a solo parent to three daughters.
The parties agree that: a. In June 2023, the tenants advised the landlord that the power switch for the oven was sparking, the hob didn’t work and the rangehood needed repair. b. The landlord arranged for contractors to view and assess the damage. c. The first electrician to attend taped the power switch and advised the tenants not to use it as it was not safe to do so. d. Two other contractors assessed the issues to provide quotes for repair. e. The landlord sent those details to the property owner, who said that he would attend to the repairs. f. The landlord emailed the tenants to tell them the quotes have been sent and they would “...get back to you ASAP.” g. In the inspection in late November/early December the tenants told the property manager that the oven was still not working. h. On 27 December 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord to say that the toilet need repair and reminded them about the oven. i. A further quote to repair was sent to the property owner on 7 January 2024. The property manager followed this up with the owner to prompt action. j. The property managers asked the contractors to remain in touch with the tenants about the progress with repairs. k. On 7 February 2024 a 14-day notice to remedy was sent to the landlord. l. The oven switch and the hob were replaced/repaired on 23 February 2024. m. The cost of repairs was a little more than the equivalent of one weeks’ rent.
The landlord notes that some of the delay between the 27 December email and the repairs was sourcing the appropriate part for the oven. Further the landlord notes that the tenant did not report that the oven had not been repaired until the inspection in November/December, despite ongoing contact about other things.
However, no explanation has been proffered for the remainder of the delays.
I consider that 8 months is a significant day in repairing an essential appliance, the landlord has failed to maintain the property as required by section 45. Accordingly, I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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 consider the landlord’s actions must have been intentional. While the property manager passed the necessary information to the property owner in a timely manner, the property owner did not undertake repairs for 8 months. A delay of this duration cannot be accidental.
The impact on the tenants has been significant. They have been without an oven for 8 months, when they have health conditions which would benefit from proper nutrition. Further, the emotional toll on [The tenant/s] has been particularly acute given the other significant stresses in his life. In addition to this, there was a significant financial cost to alternate meal options.
Finally, I consider there is a public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to tenants, particularly in terms of essential appliances, such cooking appliances.
I consider that the landlord’s actions are aggravated by the duration of the breach. I consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate and I award $2000.00.
Further, I consider, taking into account the additional costs incurred for alternative meal options and the essential nature of the appliance, the tenants are entitled to compensation for loss of amenity. This premises has a significant weekly rent, which the tenants appear to have consistently paid. They were entitled to expect a working oven and Hob. They were without one and this cause additional cost, together with a loss of amenity.
That loss has not been quantified in detail, which is not surprising given the nature of the loss. Instead of trying to quantify that amount in detail, I consider that a nominal award for loss of amenity is appropriate. I award $1,500.00 pursuant to s77(2)(n). Filing Fee
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The tenants sought suppression of their names. As they have been substantially successful in their claim they are entitled to suppression.
In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the property manager having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the Property manager’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be granted as my findings arise from issues with the property owner’s conduct and not the property manager.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815157 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815157 — State of repair

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