What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820287 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 4820287?

Compensation: $1,720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820287?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820287?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10475912-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820287 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 4820287?

Compensation: $1,720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820287?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820287?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10475912-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26 Dampier Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4820287 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820287 — net $1,740.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,720.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,740.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,740.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820287 — net $1,740.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,720.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,740.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,740.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
Prestige Property Management Limited, Craig Woods and Kerri Woods must pay [The tenant/s] $1,740.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The parties attended the hearing by telephone. Ms Bradford represented the landlords.
Ms Bradford submitted that only Prestige Property Management (Prestige) should be named as landlord. I have named the landlords who are shown as such on the tenancy agreement as well because that is legally correct.
I will refer to the landlords to mean the respondents and to the landlord and Prestige when it’s necessary to distinguish between them.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlords’ obligations in relation to the condition of the premises. There are other, less significant, claims that I will refer to below.
The landlords deny any liability. Background
The premises were built in the early 1900s. It has some original features, including sash windows.
The landlord bought the premises in 2021 and carried out some improvements before renting them to the tenant. They included installing a new bathroom and kitchen, painting the premises and new carpet in the living area.
The tenancy was from June 2021 to February 2024.
The tenant brought various issues to the landlords’ attention during the tenancy, beginning at the start of the tenancy with a list of defects that included gaps at doors and windows that allowed draughts into the premises.
The landlords’ position is that they responded appropriately whenever the tenant brought problems to their attention. They say that if the tenant was dissatisfied with the way that they dealt with anything, she should have said so and they would have addressed it.
The tenant disagrees. She says that the landlords were sometimes slow to respond and that, in some cases, the response was inadequate. She says that she did not keep on at the landlords when problems persisted or reappeared, because she was happy to have the tenancy and she did not want to jeopardise it by being appearing to be unreasonably demanding.
The tenancy agreement came with a Healthy Homes (HH) Statement that said that the landlords would comply with the HH Regulations on or after the commencement of the tenancy. Ms Bradford said that the premises should have complied with the Regulations from the start of the tenancy. But the statement does not say that, and there is no evidence that the landlords made such a representation. I note that after the tenancy has started, Ms Bradford did assert that the premises were completely HH compliant. But was not a representation that the tenant relied on before agreeing the tenancy.
I must therefore refer to the Regulations to determine when they applied. The tenancy began before 1 July 2021, and it was renewed before 28 August 2022. The Regulations applied from 90 days after the first renewal making the date and so they applied from 2 September 2022.
There is a HH report dated 3 June 2021 but that was not produced to the tenant until after she filed her application. The report stated that the premises complied with the Regulations, but Ms Bradford agreed that the report was poor quality. It was commissioned by the landlord, not Prestige. Relevant Law
Relevantly, under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with relevant HH standards.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provide that the floors of dwellings must be kept in a good state of repair free from crevices, holes and depressions.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. Evidence
The tenant sent Prestige an email on 9 June 2021 with a list of issues. They included windows painted shut and multiple cracks and gaps in the premises.
On 29 June 2021the tenant emailed Prestige and said the premises were cold, draughty and difficult to heat. Also, that there was a dip (depression) in one of the front rooms.
On 30 October 2021 the tenant again messaged Prestige and referred to the defective condition of the floor and the windows.
Prestige’s response was to say that the premises were HH compliant and that the types of things that the tenant was complaining about were common in older homes.
The landlords did arrange for some things to be remedied. The crack in the front door was sealed. There was also foam tape fixed to windows in an attempt to deal with the gaps and resultant draughts. The floorboards in one bedroom were fixed but others weren’t. The tenant took steps to mitigate the problem by moving furniture over the dips. Discussion and Decision
The gaps at the windows were plainly unreasonable and so they were not HH compliant. I do not accept that the landlords responded appropriately to remedy the defects. At best, applying foam strips over the gaps was a very temporary solution. The windows are designed to open and opening them would inevitably lead to the foam moving and coming away.
The landlords should have dealt with the defect by fixing the windows themselves, so that they could be closed without leaving unreasonable gaps. Sash windows can be repaired and of course, if necessary, they can be replaced. I note that one of the original windows in the premises has been replaced with a double-glazed window although there was no evidence of when that was done.
It follows that from 2 September 2022, the windows with gaps were not HH compliant.
Before that time, the landlords’ obligation was to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. One would not expect a house of the premises’ age and character to be completely free from draughts, but I would expect the windows to be close relatively well and not have substantial gaps. So, I find that the windows should have been in a better condition that they were from the start of the tenancy. The required standard was raised when the HH Regulations applied.
The same applies to the condition of the floors. The Housing Improvement Regulations very clearly require floors to be free of depressions. They are required to be in good state of repair as well.
The floorboards in the premises were weak in places, possibly due to borer, but the cause is irrelevant. I do not accept that the landlords responded appropriately to the tenant’s concerns about the dips in the floor. The landlords’ evidence does not satisfy me that her concerns were dealt with promptly or in some cases at all. I find, therefore, that the landlords were in breach of their obligations to maintain the flooring in a reasonable state of repair and free of depressions. Other Claims
The landlords were meant to have fitted blinds to the windows in the back bedroom by the start of the tenancy. That was not done until some six weeks later because the blinds that were delivered were the wrong size. The tenant said that her son could not use the room until the blinds were fitted.
The landlords promised the blinds and so they were in breach by not providing them. But I am not minded to make an order against the landlords for this breach. I accept that it was not their fault. The tenant appeared to accept the situation at the time and was content for her son to share a room until the blinds arrived. It would also have been possible for the tenant to rig up a temporary window covering. Remedy Windows and Floors
The tenant said that her power bills were higher than they would otherwise have been due the window draughts. She said in evidence that some of her monthly power bills were as high as $800. Since the hearing, the tenant has produced some power bills. The highest is $712 for the first month of the tenancy. Others are between $500 and $600. They cover the winter months.
It is difficult for me to assess the effect of the draughts on the tenant’s power bills. The premises are old. There is no ground vapour barrier or insulation under the house. There is not enough space to install them. There is no insulation in the walls and most of the windows are single glazed. The premises would be comparatively difficult and expensive to keep warm in any case.
But I accept that the condition of the windows would have had some effect on the tenant’s ability to keep the premises warm and on the cost of doing so. I note that the tenant had the best part of three winters in the premises.
The tenant seeks $8,520 based on a rent reduction over the period of the tenancy. That is not the correct approach in my view. The draughts were more than minor but they were not pervasive. I assess compensation on the basis that there would have been some marginal effect from them on the tenant’s power costs and the comfort of the premises but not for the duration of the tenancy. The main impact of them would be in the winter months. I find that an award of two weeks rent is appropriate and so I award $1,120.
The dips in the floor primarily affected the amenity value of the premises although there would also have been some effect on the comfort of the premises in terms of warmth where the floor was not intact.
The tenant sensibly took steps to mitigate the effect of the dips and that properly reduces the compensation that should be awarded. The floors were covered with carpet which lessened the risk of accidents resulting from the defective flooring.
The presence of the dips in the floor were a concern for the tenant, they were inconvenient, and they affected the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises. An award in the sum of $600 is appropriate. Exemplary Damages
Arguably, an award of exemplary damages is justified on the basis that the landlords could and should have responded better to the tenant’s concerns, but they chose not to. As I have found, the steps they took were inadequate.
But this is a case where the landlords appear to have believed that the actions that they took were reasonable. They saw the foam tape as a reasonable fix for the gaps in the windows and they did not see the dips in the floor as defects of much concern. This is not a case, in my view, where the landlords’ failures can properly be described as intentional breaches or as breaches warranting an award of exemplary damages. It is enough to award compensation. Suppression
The tenant has had substantial success and so I have granted her name suppression. Filing Fee
The tenant has succeeded to some extent and so I have awarded her the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820287 — Tenancy dispute at 26 Dampier Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820287 — Tenancy dispute at 26 Dampier Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

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