What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4824898 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 4824898?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Premises-S45(1)(A: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,550.00 awarded to landlord; Week) From 3/12/23 To 18/03/24 (15 W…: $3,816.00 awarded to tenant; Week) From 4/10/22 To 2/12/23 (61 We…: $8,235.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824898?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824898?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10123035-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4824898 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 4824898?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Premises-S45(1)(A: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,550.00 awarded to landlord; Week) From 3/12/23 To 18/03/24 (15 W…: $3,816.00 awarded to tenant; Week) From 4/10/22 To 2/12/23 (61 We…: $8,235.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824898?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824898?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10123035-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4824898 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4824898 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4824898 — net $14,571.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,550.00		Rent arrears
week) from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks		$8,235.00	week) from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks
week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1		$3,816.00	week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1
Exemplary damages: (failure to maintain-s45(1)(b		$2,400.00	(failure to maintain-s45(1)(b
Exemplary damages: (failure to provide clean		$2,400.00	(failure to provide clean
premises-s45(1)(a		$1,000.00	premises-s45(1)(a
Exemplary damages: (failure to comply with s15		$250.00	(failure to comply with s15
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,550.00	$18,121.44
Net award		$14,571.44
Bond		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$14,571.44

Claims and awards for application 4824898 — net $14,571.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $3,550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

week) from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks

Amount: $8,235.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: week) from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks

week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1

Amount: $3,816.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1

Exemplary damages: (failure to maintain-s45(1)(b

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: (failure to maintain-s45(1)(b

Exemplary damages: (failure to provide clean

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
A Grade Rental Homes Ltd must pay the tenants $14,571.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing at North Shore District Court on 15 March 2024.
The landlord applied for rent arrears to 18 March 2024, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants made a cross application for rent reduction in the form of compensation, exemplary damages for failure to maintain, failure to provide the premises in a clean condition, failure to meet the healthy homes standards, failure to ensure the house is free from dampness and failure to provide healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement as well as a work order to clean the premises of sewage contamination and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants also made claims for 12 days off work that one of the tenants has taken to let people into the property to address the leaks, floods, mould and dampness as well as being sick due to the damp mouldy conditions he has been living in. In addition, the tenants have made a claim for the cost of the replacement of the personal property that was damaged due to the flooding and the damp mouldy conditions that have pervaded the premises for well over 12 months. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not provide for these remedies. Background
The tenancy commenced on 14 March 2022.
The premises consist of a flat that is underneath the main house.
On or around 19 September 2022, the tenants reported a leak to the landlord that was not addressed until September 2023, and has never been fully remedied.
On 3 and 9 December 2023, the premises flooded with wastewater and sewage when a blocked drain overflowed into the premises.
The tenants sought a rent reduction for their stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity, but the parties have not been able to agree on a fair and reasonable rent reduction in all the circumstances and have asked the Tribunal to assess and award a rent reduction to the tenants.
The tenants have given themselves a rent reduction of approximately 55.5% ($250.00) per week from 30 January 2024 and have been paying $200.00 per week rent from that date. As a result, the tenants rent ledge shows rent arrears of $3,550.00 as of 18 March 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided a rent summary that proves the tenants owe $3,550.00 in rent arrears to 18 March 2024. This amount is based on the tenants being required to pay the full $450.00 rent per week from the commencement of their tenancy to 18 March 2024.
The tenants provided photographs, text messages, emails and oral evidence to support their claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, also failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and proved the premises are still damp and mouldy.
The tenants sought a rent reduction directly from the landlord for its failure to repair the leaks, wet flooring and for continuing to live in sub-par conditions.
When they could not agree any rent reduction with the landlord, until the leaks, dampness and mould were addressed, they applied to the Tribunal for a rent reduction for these breaches of the landlord’s responsibilities, as well as exemplary damages.
Therefore, whether there are any rent arrears owing to the landlord cannot be ascertained until the tenant’s claim for rent abatement has been traversed.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, which requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
There was no dispute between the parties that: a. On 3 December 2023 and again on 12 December 2023, the premises flooded with wastewater that contained some raw sewage; b. On 3 and 4 December 2023, the landlord had two plumbers come to investigate the blockage, and eventually Watercare confirmed that the wastewater came up into the premises through the flooring, as a result of a blocked drain at 19 Aberdeen Road, Castor Bay; c. On 3 and 12 December 2023, the landlord had a contractor come to the premises to suck the wastewater out of the flooring. Each time the contractors used commercial fans for 4 days to dry out the flooring further; d. The landlord did not attempt to get the premises cleaned and sanitised, after two wastewater floods and left the tenants living in raw sewage covered flooring from 3 December 2023 to the date of the hearing.
The tenants produced photographs, emails and text messages with various property managers supporting their claim.
The photographs show that the flooring in the kitchen and other parts of the premises was flooded with wastewater and that after the contractor sucked the wastewater out of the premises on 3 and 12 December 2023, the premises continued to flood with wastewater rendering the fans useless and the premises remaining contaminated by water that contained raw sewage.
On 12 December 2023, the tenants asked the landlord for cleaning products so they could disinfect the property as best they could. The landlord approved the purchase of a bucket, 2 pairs of gloves and some cleaning product. The amount of decontamination the tenants could achieve with these cleaning supplies was minimal.
Since 12 December 2023, the landlord has done nothing else to decontaminate the premises and did not give notice to the tenants to vacate the premises until 23 January 2024.
The wastewater has remained under the flooring trapped between the concrete floor and the floor covering. The wastewater comes into the premises through the joins in the flooring. At first it was the wastewater coming through the floor joins but more latterly it is dried wastewater that comes up through the joins into the premises. The tenants must wear jandals or shoes at all times in the house, as the floor is so unsanitary.
On 14 December 2023, the tenants and the landlord received a report from Watercare. The report confirms “In the last 2 weeks there have been 2 wastewater overflows on the network which has entered the bottom floor of the property. The overflow has been severe, and the contamination of the property is a health and safety risk for the occupants and the area is not habitable”.
On 8 January 2024, the tenant’s followed up the landlord again and informed the landlord that one of the tenants had become ill with vomiting and diarrhoea from living in a contaminated environment. The owner came over that day to investigate further but only stayed 5 to 10 minutes and did not appear interested in sanitising the premises. Later that day the owner sent the tenants a text message asking them to prove the premises were uninhabitable.
The tenants sent the owner another copy of the 14 December 2023 Watercare report on 8 January 2024 and gave him 3 days to confirm what he was going to do about the contaminated premises they were living in. The owner responded that he would get an insurance quote and requested that the tenants be there to show the assessors the damage in its entirety, including the mould and the unusable kitchen cabinetry.
No assessors came to the property, there was no further communication from the owner or the property manager about the issue, until the tenants were issued a 90day termination notice on 23 January 2024.
I am satisfied that the premises were far from reasonably clean from 3 December 2023 right up to the date of the hearing and find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state during that period.
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.
The lack of cleanliness was obvious. The premises were very far from reasonably clean. The tenant had forewarned the property manager and the owner of cleanliness and sanitation issues. It follows that the landlord’s breach was intentional.
The tenants say the landlord refused to offer them a rent rebate for the period they have lived in premises contaminated by wastewater and raw sewage. From 15 January 2024, the tenants say they offered to pay $200.00 per week until the premises were contaminated as the wastewater had started to seep up the walls. The owner made it clear that he did not agree to that rent reduction offer and wanted to come to the Tribunal for a ruling on whether a reduction in rent was warranted. He then issued the tenants a 90-day notice to end the tenancy on 23 January 2024, with the last day of the tenancy being 21 April 2024. Even then, the owner was content to leave the tenants living in a sewage contaminated home, when he could have had the flooring ripped up after the second flood and the concrete floors underneath fully disinfected as a preliminary step. This would have allowed him time to contact his insurer and get the flooring replaced but enabled the tenants to live in clean and sanitary conditions. He chose to do nothing more than have the water sucked up and dryers used to blow faecal coliforms and other wastewater contaminants around the premises.
The tenants had to clean the premises themselves with the minimal cleaners provided to them as they did not have enough spare money to purchase better cleaning products.
The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of their obligations under the Act, the uncleanliness distressed the tenants greatly, the public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
I also order the landlord to provide the tenants with a 56% rent rebate, being a deduction of ($252.00 per week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1 day). This amounts to a rebate of $3,816.00.
In addition, I order the landlord to continue to provide the rent rebate of $252.00 per week until the end of the tenancy, as the landlord has confirmed it has no intention of addressing the cleanliness issue until after the tenants have given it vacant possession on 21 April 2024 and they have done nothing to address the toxic black mould in the kitchen cabinetry or the wardrobe, both of which are unusable. For the avoidance of doubt, the rent payable each week is $198.00 per week.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, which states the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
Breaching the landlords s45(1)(b) of the RTA 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].
The tenants claim the landlord has refused to fix a leak that was first brought to its attention on 19 September 2022. They say they have contracted respiratory illnesses because of living in cold damp and mouldy conditions since this date.
The tenants claim they showed the property manager a leak coming through the top of the doorframe, took photos and sent them to him and discussed it with him again at the next property inspection.
The tenants produced evidence that shows, on 1 October 2022, the property manager informed the tenants a tradesman had been and had identified the source of the leak and would be returning to repair it. The leak continued to be an issue.
On 19 December 2022, the tenants claim they checked with the new property manager about the leak and showed her that the leak was causing dampness in the premises, black mould had grown in the wardrobe and had ruined some of their clothes which needed to be thrown out. As such, they were no longer using the wardrobe.
On 16 February 2023, the tenants say the property manager sent them an HHS report dated 11 November 2020 stating the property was healthy homes standard compliant. The tenants informed the property manager the kitchen cabinetry and wardrobe were unusable due to black mould and the premises were constantly damp from the unresolved leak.
On 23 November 2023, 14 months after the leak was first raised with the landlord, the tenants say the property manager came to the premises with a plumber. They did not go inside the premises to see where the leak was coming into the premises and assumed the water was coming from an appliance in the upstairs laundry, as that was what was above the tenants’ kitchen area. The property manager also gave the tenants two bottles of mould spray the tenants had previously requested.
On 15 May 2023, the tenants say a tri-monthly property inspection was carried out and the property manager was shown the water was still pouring down the door frame into the kitchen and moving along the ceiling to other rooms.
On 14 June 2023, the tenants say the property manager was remined about the leak. She indicated to the tenants she had assumed it had stopped. They confirmed it had not.
The tenants provided evidence that on 30 June 2023, a builder was sent to look at the issue. He returned on 15 July 2023 and cut a hole in the ceiling and at this stage it became apparent that there had been a burst pipe in the ceiling which was connected to the upstairs occupant’s dishwasher. The water had been running into the ceiling cavity for some time and was now causing a flood. No one thought to tell the upstairs occupants, who continued to use the dishwasher and cause worse flooding into the tenants’ home.
On 19 July 2023, the landlord accepted a quote to fix the leak. When the builder came to do the work, he removed and replaced the worst affected drywall but left a lot of the wet walls to dry out themselves. Much of the walls in the tenants’ premises were still damp at that time.
Nothing further has been done and the tenants have shown photographs that prove the damp has continued to spread throughout the house and that the kitchen cabinetry has become so damp that black toxic mould is growing through it and the kitchen has become unusable. The wardrobe is also full of black mould and other fungi.
I find that the landlord has failed to repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. I also find that the landlord did so intentionally.
The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of their obligations under the Act. The failure to repair the leak at all from 19 September 2022 to early August 2023, as well as to not fully repair the flooding damage in the walls and kitchen cabinets caused by the leak, distressed the tenants greatly and caused them a loss of amenity and ill health. The public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
I also order the landlord to provide the tenants with a 30% rent rebate, being a deduction of $135.00 per week from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks). This amounts to a rebate of $8,235.00. Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA, which states the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. This includes a requirement to comply with the minimum standards of housing as set out in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. Section 15 of the Regulations provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
I find that the landlord has intentionally failed to ensure the premises are free from dampness for all the reasons traversed in paragraphs 16 to 56 above and as such 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.
The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of their obligations under the Act. The failure to ensure the premises were free from dampness from 19 September 2022 to the date of the hearing has distressed the tenants greatly and caused them a loss of amenity and ill health. The public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,000.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information in the tenancy agreement?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement provided to and signed by the tenant does not include any of the required healthy homes standards information, other than an insulation statement. It states the healthy homes standards do not apply to the premises but does not explain why. As such, the tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant and/or whether any exemptions apply to the premises.
During the hearing, the landlord gave evidence that he was unsure why the tenancy agreement states the healthy homes standards do not apply to the premises and provided a healthy homes report dated 11 November 2020.
It appears that the landlord has not updated its tenancy agreements to comply with the healthy homes related requirements set out in s13A (1CA) of the RTA that have been in force since 1 July 2021. Given this tenancy commenced on 14 March 2022, the landlord should have provided, in the tenancy agreement, a healthy homes statement for each of healthy homes standard as well as a summary statement that it will comply with the healthy homes’ standards.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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.
The parties both gave evidence that the tenants did not raise any issues or concerns about the landlord’s failure to provide the required healthy homes statements in the tenancy agreement, until these proceedings were filed in the Tribunal.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenants with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA. The contents of the tenancy agreement suggest the landlord was aware of its healthy home standards related obligations but chose not to comply with this legislative obligation.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenants with the required healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages, the Tribunal may make an order accordingly because: a. The landlord knew it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and considered that providing tenants with only an insulation statement was enough to meet its legal obligations pursuant to ss13A and 45 when it is not; b. The impact on the tenants on the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise that may not meet the drainage and moisture ingress standards, the tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise may not comply with all of the healthy homes standards, but was denied that opportunity as the tenants have no signed drainage and moisture ingress statements that confirms by an independent third party that the premises are and have been compliant throughout their tenancy. It was only when the parties had filed their claims in the Tribunal that the landlord provided a 2020; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenant that the rental premises meet the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that mee the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Breach of healthy homes standards
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
In this case I have determined that the landlord has complied with the healthy homes’ standards. The landlord failed to maintain the premises and left the tenants to live in damp, unsanitary conditions that resulted from flooding that was nothing to do with the premises drainage and moisture ingress systems, but from a failure of the public drainage network. Equally, the flood from the upstairs dishwasher does not constitute a breach of the healthy homes moisture ingress systems.
I find A Grade Rental Homes Ltd has not breached the healthy homes standards and dismiss the tenants claim. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the applicants has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has not been successful in its claims and its application for reimbursement of its filing fee is dismissed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4824898 — net $14,571.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,550.00		Rent arrears
week) from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks		$8,235.00	week) from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks
week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1		$3,816.00	week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1
Exemplary damages: (failure to maintain-s45(1)(b		$2,400.00	(failure to maintain-s45(1)(b
Exemplary damages: (failure to provide clean		$2,400.00	(failure to provide clean
premises-s45(1)(a		$1,000.00	premises-s45(1)(a
Exemplary damages: (failure to comply with s15		$250.00	(failure to comply with s15
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,550.00	$18,121.44
Net award		$14,571.44
Bond		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$14,571.44

Claims and awards for application 4824898 — net $14,571.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $3,550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

week) from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks

Amount: $8,235.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: week) from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks

week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1

Amount: $3,816.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1

Exemplary damages: (failure to maintain-s45(1)(b

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: (failure to maintain-s45(1)(b

Exemplary damages: (failure to provide clean

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
A Grade Rental Homes Ltd must pay the tenants $14,571.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing at North Shore District Court on 15 March 2024.
The landlord applied for rent arrears to 18 March 2024, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants made a cross application for rent reduction in the form of compensation, exemplary damages for failure to maintain, failure to provide the premises in a clean condition, failure to meet the healthy homes standards, failure to ensure the house is free from dampness and failure to provide healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement as well as a work order to clean the premises of sewage contamination and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants also made claims for 12 days off work that one of the tenants has taken to let people into the property to address the leaks, floods, mould and dampness as well as being sick due to the damp mouldy conditions he has been living in. In addition, the tenants have made a claim for the cost of the replacement of the personal property that was damaged due to the flooding and the damp mouldy conditions that have pervaded the premises for well over 12 months. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not provide for these remedies. Background
The tenancy commenced on 14 March 2022.
The premises consist of a flat that is underneath the main house.
On or around 19 September 2022, the tenants reported a leak to the landlord that was not addressed until September 2023, and has never been fully remedied.
On 3 and 9 December 2023, the premises flooded with wastewater and sewage when a blocked drain overflowed into the premises.
The tenants sought a rent reduction for their stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity, but the parties have not been able to agree on a fair and reasonable rent reduction in all the circumstances and have asked the Tribunal to assess and award a rent reduction to the tenants.
The tenants have given themselves a rent reduction of approximately 55.5% ($250.00) per week from 30 January 2024 and have been paying $200.00 per week rent from that date. As a result, the tenants rent ledge shows rent arrears of $3,550.00 as of 18 March 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided a rent summary that proves the tenants owe $3,550.00 in rent arrears to 18 March 2024. This amount is based on the tenants being required to pay the full $450.00 rent per week from the commencement of their tenancy to 18 March 2024.
The tenants provided photographs, text messages, emails and oral evidence to support their claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, also failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and proved the premises are still damp and mouldy.
The tenants sought a rent reduction directly from the landlord for its failure to repair the leaks, wet flooring and for continuing to live in sub-par conditions.
When they could not agree any rent reduction with the landlord, until the leaks, dampness and mould were addressed, they applied to the Tribunal for a rent reduction for these breaches of the landlord’s responsibilities, as well as exemplary damages.
Therefore, whether there are any rent arrears owing to the landlord cannot be ascertained until the tenant’s claim for rent abatement has been traversed.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, which requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
There was no dispute between the parties that: a. On 3 December 2023 and again on 12 December 2023, the premises flooded with wastewater that contained some raw sewage; b. On 3 and 4 December 2023, the landlord had two plumbers come to investigate the blockage, and eventually Watercare confirmed that the wastewater came up into the premises through the flooring, as a result of a blocked drain at 19 Aberdeen Road, Castor Bay; c. On 3 and 12 December 2023, the landlord had a contractor come to the premises to suck the wastewater out of the flooring. Each time the contractors used commercial fans for 4 days to dry out the flooring further; d. The landlord did not attempt to get the premises cleaned and sanitised, after two wastewater floods and left the tenants living in raw sewage covered flooring from 3 December 2023 to the date of the hearing.
The tenants produced photographs, emails and text messages with various property managers supporting their claim.
The photographs show that the flooring in the kitchen and other parts of the premises was flooded with wastewater and that after the contractor sucked the wastewater out of the premises on 3 and 12 December 2023, the premises continued to flood with wastewater rendering the fans useless and the premises remaining contaminated by water that contained raw sewage.
On 12 December 2023, the tenants asked the landlord for cleaning products so they could disinfect the property as best they could. The landlord approved the purchase of a bucket, 2 pairs of gloves and some cleaning product. The amount of decontamination the tenants could achieve with these cleaning supplies was minimal.
Since 12 December 2023, the landlord has done nothing else to decontaminate the premises and did not give notice to the tenants to vacate the premises until 23 January 2024.
The wastewater has remained under the flooring trapped between the concrete floor and the floor covering. The wastewater comes into the premises through the joins in the flooring. At first it was the wastewater coming through the floor joins but more latterly it is dried wastewater that comes up through the joins into the premises. The tenants must wear jandals or shoes at all times in the house, as the floor is so unsanitary.
On 14 December 2023, the tenants and the landlord received a report from Watercare. The report confirms “In the last 2 weeks there have been 2 wastewater overflows on the network which has entered the bottom floor of the property. The overflow has been severe, and the contamination of the property is a health and safety risk for the occupants and the area is not habitable”.
On 8 January 2024, the tenant’s followed up the landlord again and informed the landlord that one of the tenants had become ill with vomiting and diarrhoea from living in a contaminated environment. The owner came over that day to investigate further but only stayed 5 to 10 minutes and did not appear interested in sanitising the premises. Later that day the owner sent the tenants a text message asking them to prove the premises were uninhabitable.
The tenants sent the owner another copy of the 14 December 2023 Watercare report on 8 January 2024 and gave him 3 days to confirm what he was going to do about the contaminated premises they were living in. The owner responded that he would get an insurance quote and requested that the tenants be there to show the assessors the damage in its entirety, including the mould and the unusable kitchen cabinetry.
No assessors came to the property, there was no further communication from the owner or the property manager about the issue, until the tenants were issued a 90day termination notice on 23 January 2024.
I am satisfied that the premises were far from reasonably clean from 3 December 2023 right up to the date of the hearing and find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state during that period.
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.
The lack of cleanliness was obvious. The premises were very far from reasonably clean. The tenant had forewarned the property manager and the owner of cleanliness and sanitation issues. It follows that the landlord’s breach was intentional.
The tenants say the landlord refused to offer them a rent rebate for the period they have lived in premises contaminated by wastewater and raw sewage. From 15 January 2024, the tenants say they offered to pay $200.00 per week until the premises were contaminated as the wastewater had started to seep up the walls. The owner made it clear that he did not agree to that rent reduction offer and wanted to come to the Tribunal for a ruling on whether a reduction in rent was warranted. He then issued the tenants a 90-day notice to end the tenancy on 23 January 2024, with the last day of the tenancy being 21 April 2024. Even then, the owner was content to leave the tenants living in a sewage contaminated home, when he could have had the flooring ripped up after the second flood and the concrete floors underneath fully disinfected as a preliminary step. This would have allowed him time to contact his insurer and get the flooring replaced but enabled the tenants to live in clean and sanitary conditions. He chose to do nothing more than have the water sucked up and dryers used to blow faecal coliforms and other wastewater contaminants around the premises.
The tenants had to clean the premises themselves with the minimal cleaners provided to them as they did not have enough spare money to purchase better cleaning products.
The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of their obligations under the Act, the uncleanliness distressed the tenants greatly, the public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
I also order the landlord to provide the tenants with a 56% rent rebate, being a deduction of ($252.00 per week) from 3/12/23 to 18/03/24 (15 weeks and 1 day). This amounts to a rebate of $3,816.00.
In addition, I order the landlord to continue to provide the rent rebate of $252.00 per week until the end of the tenancy, as the landlord has confirmed it has no intention of addressing the cleanliness issue until after the tenants have given it vacant possession on 21 April 2024 and they have done nothing to address the toxic black mould in the kitchen cabinetry or the wardrobe, both of which are unusable. For the avoidance of doubt, the rent payable each week is $198.00 per week.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, which states the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
Breaching the landlords s45(1)(b) of the RTA 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].
The tenants claim the landlord has refused to fix a leak that was first brought to its attention on 19 September 2022. They say they have contracted respiratory illnesses because of living in cold damp and mouldy conditions since this date.
The tenants claim they showed the property manager a leak coming through the top of the doorframe, took photos and sent them to him and discussed it with him again at the next property inspection.
The tenants produced evidence that shows, on 1 October 2022, the property manager informed the tenants a tradesman had been and had identified the source of the leak and would be returning to repair it. The leak continued to be an issue.
On 19 December 2022, the tenants claim they checked with the new property manager about the leak and showed her that the leak was causing dampness in the premises, black mould had grown in the wardrobe and had ruined some of their clothes which needed to be thrown out. As such, they were no longer using the wardrobe.
On 16 February 2023, the tenants say the property manager sent them an HHS report dated 11 November 2020 stating the property was healthy homes standard compliant. The tenants informed the property manager the kitchen cabinetry and wardrobe were unusable due to black mould and the premises were constantly damp from the unresolved leak.
On 23 November 2023, 14 months after the leak was first raised with the landlord, the tenants say the property manager came to the premises with a plumber. They did not go inside the premises to see where the leak was coming into the premises and assumed the water was coming from an appliance in the upstairs laundry, as that was what was above the tenants’ kitchen area. The property manager also gave the tenants two bottles of mould spray the tenants had previously requested.
On 15 May 2023, the tenants say a tri-monthly property inspection was carried out and the property manager was shown the water was still pouring down the door frame into the kitchen and moving along the ceiling to other rooms.
On 14 June 2023, the tenants say the property manager was remined about the leak. She indicated to the tenants she had assumed it had stopped. They confirmed it had not.
The tenants provided evidence that on 30 June 2023, a builder was sent to look at the issue. He returned on 15 July 2023 and cut a hole in the ceiling and at this stage it became apparent that there had been a burst pipe in the ceiling which was connected to the upstairs occupant’s dishwasher. The water had been running into the ceiling cavity for some time and was now causing a flood. No one thought to tell the upstairs occupants, who continued to use the dishwasher and cause worse flooding into the tenants’ home.
On 19 July 2023, the landlord accepted a quote to fix the leak. When the builder came to do the work, he removed and replaced the worst affected drywall but left a lot of the wet walls to dry out themselves. Much of the walls in the tenants’ premises were still damp at that time.
Nothing further has been done and the tenants have shown photographs that prove the damp has continued to spread throughout the house and that the kitchen cabinetry has become so damp that black toxic mould is growing through it and the kitchen has become unusable. The wardrobe is also full of black mould and other fungi.
I find that the landlord has failed to repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. I also find that the landlord did so intentionally.
The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of their obligations under the Act. The failure to repair the leak at all from 19 September 2022 to early August 2023, as well as to not fully repair the flooding damage in the walls and kitchen cabinets caused by the leak, distressed the tenants greatly and caused them a loss of amenity and ill health. The public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
I also order the landlord to provide the tenants with a 30% rent rebate, being a deduction of $135.00 per week from 4/10/22 to 2/12/23 (61 weeks). This amounts to a rebate of $8,235.00. Did the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA, which states the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. This includes a requirement to comply with the minimum standards of housing as set out in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. Section 15 of the Regulations provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
I find that the landlord has intentionally failed to ensure the premises are free from dampness for all the reasons traversed in paragraphs 16 to 56 above and as such 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.
The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of their obligations under the Act. The failure to ensure the premises were free from dampness from 19 September 2022 to the date of the hearing has distressed the tenants greatly and caused them a loss of amenity and ill health. The public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,000.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information in the tenancy agreement?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement provided to and signed by the tenant does not include any of the required healthy homes standards information, other than an insulation statement. It states the healthy homes standards do not apply to the premises but does not explain why. As such, the tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant and/or whether any exemptions apply to the premises.
During the hearing, the landlord gave evidence that he was unsure why the tenancy agreement states the healthy homes standards do not apply to the premises and provided a healthy homes report dated 11 November 2020.
It appears that the landlord has not updated its tenancy agreements to comply with the healthy homes related requirements set out in s13A (1CA) of the RTA that have been in force since 1 July 2021. Given this tenancy commenced on 14 March 2022, the landlord should have provided, in the tenancy agreement, a healthy homes statement for each of healthy homes standard as well as a summary statement that it will comply with the healthy homes’ standards.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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.
The parties both gave evidence that the tenants did not raise any issues or concerns about the landlord’s failure to provide the required healthy homes statements in the tenancy agreement, until these proceedings were filed in the Tribunal.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenants with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA. The contents of the tenancy agreement suggest the landlord was aware of its healthy home standards related obligations but chose not to comply with this legislative obligation.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenants with the required healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages, the Tribunal may make an order accordingly because: a. The landlord knew it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and considered that providing tenants with only an insulation statement was enough to meet its legal obligations pursuant to ss13A and 45 when it is not; b. The impact on the tenants on the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise that may not meet the drainage and moisture ingress standards, the tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise may not comply with all of the healthy homes standards, but was denied that opportunity as the tenants have no signed drainage and moisture ingress statements that confirms by an independent third party that the premises are and have been compliant throughout their tenancy. It was only when the parties had filed their claims in the Tribunal that the landlord provided a 2020; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenant that the rental premises meet the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that mee the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Breach of healthy homes standards
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
In this case I have determined that the landlord has complied with the healthy homes’ standards. The landlord failed to maintain the premises and left the tenants to live in damp, unsanitary conditions that resulted from flooding that was nothing to do with the premises drainage and moisture ingress systems, but from a failure of the public drainage network. Equally, the flood from the upstairs dishwasher does not constitute a breach of the healthy homes moisture ingress systems.
I find A Grade Rental Homes Ltd has not breached the healthy homes standards and dismiss the tenants claim. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the applicants has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has not been successful in its claims and its application for reimbursement of its filing fee is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824898 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824898 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information in the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord fail to provide HHS information in the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions