What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4830397 about?

The tribunal order states: Rent Ezy Property Management Limited Moksha Arora must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4830397?

Property Damage: $1,650.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Power Reimbursement: $3,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4830397?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4830397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10316280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4830397 about?

The tribunal order states: Rent Ezy Property Management Limited Moksha Arora must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4830397?

Property Damage: $1,650.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Power Reimbursement: $3,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4830397?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4830397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10316280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 139 Donovan Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4830397 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4830397 — net $4,870.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Power reimbursement	$3,200.00	Power reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Maintenance	$1,650.00	Maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,870.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,870.44

Order

Rent Ezy Property Management Limited Moksha Arora must pay [The tenant/s] $4,870.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by phone as he is now located overseas. The tenant attended the hearing.
The landlord transferred management of the premises on 15 April 2024 to another Property Management Company called Star Property Management. Representatives from Star Property Management attended the hearing as some issues concern the ongoing tenancy.
The landlord applied for termination and rent arrears.
The tenant applied for a work order, compensation, exemplary damages and an order in relation to the increase of the weekly rent. Landlord application
At the hearing Star Property Management confirmed that the tenant did not owe any rent arrears. Termination was still sought given the history of rent arrears.
The tenant submitted that he had had difficulty paying rent arrears due to the situation with the amount of power he was paying and his difficulty in getting flatmates due to the condition of the premises.
After consideration of section 55(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 I consider it unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach in respect of rent arrears. I have made it very clear to the tenant of the consequences of being in arrears.
Star Property Management mentioned issues with the condition of the premises but that was not the ground for seeking termination and no notice has been issued on the tenant in respect of this issue.
For these reasons I refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. That claim is dismissed. The claim in respect of rent arrears is withdrawn and therefore also dismissed. Tenant application
The applicant applied for a work order for replacement of the carpet. There had been communication between the tenant and landlord over a period where the tenant asked for the carpet to be replaced. While the landlord agreed to replace the carpet that has not occurred.
The landlord engaged a carpet company to look at the carpet and provide a quote for replacement carpet. The quote dated 20 April 2023 states that there are water marks, moulding and water damage on the carpet. Otherwise, it is in good condition. I note that that report is now one year old.
The tenant says that the condition of the carpet has impacted on his ability to get flatmates.
The carpet appeared to be in a reasonable state when the tenancy began but that is four years ago. There is no evidence as to how old the carpet is. During the tenancy there has been damage to the carpet as mentioned in the report.
The tenant has a new landlord. If the carpet is damaged it should be repaired or replaced. The new landlord has not had an opportunity to undertake repairs and maintenance at the premises. If any necessary repairs or maintenance is not carried out by this landlord, then the tenant has remedies under the Act.
The tenant’s application for a work order is dismissed as it is not clear from the evidence submitted that the carpet needs replacing.
There are three units at the property but only one hot water cylinder. The tenant has paid for much of the power used to heat the hot water cylinder and the hot water has been used by all three units.
Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states that tenants are responsible “for all outgoings that in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises”.
As all three units have used the same hot water cylinder there is no way to determine the amount of power that was exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises.
In Geraghty v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, the District Court held that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings when there is no means for calculating the tenant’s actual consumption the Tenancy Tribunal must have regard to section 85 RTA.
Section 85(2) RTA states: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal
Since taking over the tenancy Star Property Management has installed a check meter on the hot water cylinder to determine how much of the tenant’s power is used to heat the cylinder. While this may address the issue going forward the reality is that the tenant has paid for power that is not exclusively attributable to him.
Star Property Management has taken the results of the check meter from the last couple of weeks and calculated what they consider the tenant should be reimbursed for the power he paid to heat the hot water cylinder. The method used is not completely accurate but then any method used would not be. They suggest that the tenant is reimbursed $2,737.31.
The tenant said that there was a period where he was overseas so would not have used any of the hot water during that period. Also, he said that there were more people living in the downstairs units than there were in his unit. Taking account of the tenant’s submissions I consider that the amount to be reimbursed should be increased slightly. I have awarded $3,200.00 which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.
[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.
The landlord has failed to maintain the premises including in respect of the holes in the walls caused by rats, repair of the stove, pest control, repair of the stairs and vegetation in the guttering. 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.
While the landlord has mostly addressed these issues they have not always been addressed in a timely manner. For example, the tenant went without a fully working stove for almost four months. Also, the holes caused by the rats were not repaired even though the landlord was advised of them by the pest control contractor in July 2023.
The landlord’s failure to act on maintenance issues has had a negative impact on the tenant’s living environment and in the case of the stairs, his safety, as he fell when the stairs broke.
It is in the public interest for the landlord to act on maintenance issues which involves preventative measures as well as acting when things go wrong. For example, the landlord could have a cleaning schedule which would prevent vegetation growing in the guttering or mould and mildew growing on the stairs.
Given the evidence I consider that that an award of $1,650.00 is reasonable which is equivalent to three weeks rent of $550.00.
The tenant applied in respect of the increase in rent to $650.00 that took effect on 6 March 2024. Prior to this, and since the tenancy began almost four years ago, the weekly rent has been $550.00.
Given the evidence and taking account of the average weekly rent for this area I do not consider that the rise in rent is unreasonable.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4830397 — net $4,870.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Power reimbursement	$3,200.00	Power reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Maintenance	$1,650.00	Maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,870.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,870.44

Order

Rent Ezy Property Management Limited Moksha Arora must pay [The tenant/s] $4,870.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by phone as he is now located overseas. The tenant attended the hearing.
The landlord transferred management of the premises on 15 April 2024 to another Property Management Company called Star Property Management. Representatives from Star Property Management attended the hearing as some issues concern the ongoing tenancy.
The landlord applied for termination and rent arrears.
The tenant applied for a work order, compensation, exemplary damages and an order in relation to the increase of the weekly rent. Landlord application
At the hearing Star Property Management confirmed that the tenant did not owe any rent arrears. Termination was still sought given the history of rent arrears.
The tenant submitted that he had had difficulty paying rent arrears due to the situation with the amount of power he was paying and his difficulty in getting flatmates due to the condition of the premises.
After consideration of section 55(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 I consider it unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach in respect of rent arrears. I have made it very clear to the tenant of the consequences of being in arrears.
Star Property Management mentioned issues with the condition of the premises but that was not the ground for seeking termination and no notice has been issued on the tenant in respect of this issue.
For these reasons I refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. That claim is dismissed. The claim in respect of rent arrears is withdrawn and therefore also dismissed. Tenant application
The applicant applied for a work order for replacement of the carpet. There had been communication between the tenant and landlord over a period where the tenant asked for the carpet to be replaced. While the landlord agreed to replace the carpet that has not occurred.
The landlord engaged a carpet company to look at the carpet and provide a quote for replacement carpet. The quote dated 20 April 2023 states that there are water marks, moulding and water damage on the carpet. Otherwise, it is in good condition. I note that that report is now one year old.
The tenant says that the condition of the carpet has impacted on his ability to get flatmates.
The carpet appeared to be in a reasonable state when the tenancy began but that is four years ago. There is no evidence as to how old the carpet is. During the tenancy there has been damage to the carpet as mentioned in the report.
The tenant has a new landlord. If the carpet is damaged it should be repaired or replaced. The new landlord has not had an opportunity to undertake repairs and maintenance at the premises. If any necessary repairs or maintenance is not carried out by this landlord, then the tenant has remedies under the Act.
The tenant’s application for a work order is dismissed as it is not clear from the evidence submitted that the carpet needs replacing.
There are three units at the property but only one hot water cylinder. The tenant has paid for much of the power used to heat the hot water cylinder and the hot water has been used by all three units.
Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states that tenants are responsible “for all outgoings that in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises”.
As all three units have used the same hot water cylinder there is no way to determine the amount of power that was exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises.
In Geraghty v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, the District Court held that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings when there is no means for calculating the tenant’s actual consumption the Tenancy Tribunal must have regard to section 85 RTA.
Section 85(2) RTA states: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal
Since taking over the tenancy Star Property Management has installed a check meter on the hot water cylinder to determine how much of the tenant’s power is used to heat the cylinder. While this may address the issue going forward the reality is that the tenant has paid for power that is not exclusively attributable to him.
Star Property Management has taken the results of the check meter from the last couple of weeks and calculated what they consider the tenant should be reimbursed for the power he paid to heat the hot water cylinder. The method used is not completely accurate but then any method used would not be. They suggest that the tenant is reimbursed $2,737.31.
The tenant said that there was a period where he was overseas so would not have used any of the hot water during that period. Also, he said that there were more people living in the downstairs units than there were in his unit. Taking account of the tenant’s submissions I consider that the amount to be reimbursed should be increased slightly. I have awarded $3,200.00 which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.
[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.
The landlord has failed to maintain the premises including in respect of the holes in the walls caused by rats, repair of the stove, pest control, repair of the stairs and vegetation in the guttering. 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.
While the landlord has mostly addressed these issues they have not always been addressed in a timely manner. For example, the tenant went without a fully working stove for almost four months. Also, the holes caused by the rats were not repaired even though the landlord was advised of them by the pest control contractor in July 2023.
The landlord’s failure to act on maintenance issues has had a negative impact on the tenant’s living environment and in the case of the stairs, his safety, as he fell when the stairs broke.
It is in the public interest for the landlord to act on maintenance issues which involves preventative measures as well as acting when things go wrong. For example, the landlord could have a cleaning schedule which would prevent vegetation growing in the guttering or mould and mildew growing on the stairs.
Given the evidence I consider that that an award of $1,650.00 is reasonable which is equivalent to three weeks rent of $550.00.
The tenant applied in respect of the increase in rent to $650.00 that took effect on 6 March 2024. Prior to this, and since the tenancy began almost four years ago, the weekly rent has been $550.00.
Given the evidence and taking account of the average weekly rent for this area I do not consider that the rise in rent is unreasonable.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4830397 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 139 Donovan Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4830397 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 139 Donovan Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions