How much money was awarded in case 4845903?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Inconvenience and los…: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845903?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845903?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10196624-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4845903?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Inconvenience and los…: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845903?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845903?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10196624-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4845903 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4845903 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4845903 — net $4,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: (Failure to lodge bond	$800.00	(Failure to lodge bond
______________________________________________________________________________ 48459032 Exemplary damages: (Failure to r	$2,400.00	26. I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s45 of the RTA.
Compensation: (Inconvenience and loss of amenity- Rangehood, leaky faucet, dirty carpet and shower door	$1,700.00	(Inconvenience and loss of amenity- Rangehood, leaky faucet, dirty carpet and shower door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	32. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $800.00 in exemplary damages because: a.
Net award	$4,920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,920.44

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 18 April 2024: a. The landlord must have the issue with the non-functioning rangehood in the kitchen investigated and it must be repaired or replaced if it is unable to be repaired or it is uneconomic to repair it; b. The carpet throughout the entire house must be commercially cleaned and dried and any stains removed that are capable of removal; c. The leaky kitchen faucet must be repaired.

As an alternative to compliance with Order 2 above, the landlord must pay the tenant $ $3,450.00 immediately.

If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $$3,540.00. This amount is comprised of up to $2,000.00 for the rangehood, up to $950.00 for the carpet cleaning and drying and up to $500.00 for the kitchen faucet. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

One Team Rentals Limited As Agent For David Saggs & Phillippa Collins must pay [the tenants] $4,920.44 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:.

Reasons

[Tenant 1 name suppressed] attended the hearing. The landlord did not.

I am satisfied that the landlord had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. [Tenant 1 name suppressed] confirmed he had been in contact with the property manager and the owner of the property in the last few days and they were both aware of this proceeding. In addition, the registrar tried to call the property manager on the mobile number provided but there was no response to the call. Background

The fixed term tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023 and ends on 13 December 2024.

The house is a 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom home with a separate dining, kitchen, playroom and lounge.

The tenants pay rent of $1,850.00 rent per week for the premises.

The tenants did not receive an entry property inspection report until 23 January 2024, when they moved in on 15 December 2023. The entry inspection report did not record the state of uncleanness of the house generally, including the carpets nor did it record numerous issues that the landlord confirmed to the tenants verbally it was made aware of by the previous tenants but had not fixed. For example, 20 light bulbs that were not working in the property on 15/12/23 when the tenancy commenced and the garage door and outside lights shorted the fuse box when used because of a corroded outside light fitting, the rangehood was not working at all, the shower door hinge had dropped the door wouldn’t open and close without risk of smashing and the kitchen faucet leaks Work Order

The tenants claims that the landlord did not fix the non-functioning rangehood, did not clean the dirty carpets prior to the commencement of the tenancy and fixed the leaky kitchen faucet The tenants want the problem fixed.

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Refer to Order 2 above.

A work order may also authorise the tenants to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenants against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Refer to Order 3 above.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

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

There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.

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 . 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 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 any of these s45(1)(a) and/or (b) 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.

The tenants gave evidence that proves the landlord was aware of a number of repair and maintenance issues with the property that its previous tenant had raised but were not remedied before the tenants’ tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023.

The tenants provided email evidence that proves the tenants met their s40 of the RTA obligation to inform the landlord of any issues with the property that required investigation, repair and/or maintenance. These emails show that the tenants: a. Raised concerns about the cleanliness of the home and the carpets at the commencement of the tenancy (15/12/23) and these issues have still not been addressed as at the date of the hearing; b. Raised concerns about approximately 20 light bulbs that were not working in the property on 15/12/23 when the tenancy started as well as the garage door and outside lights that shorted the fuse box when used. These issues were remedied around 20/12/23; c. Raised concerns on 15/12/23 about the rangehood not working, the faulty shower door that scraps when opened or closed and the kitchen faucet leaking. All these issues had still not been remedied as at the date of the hearing. The landlord sent someone to look at the leaking tap around mid- March 2024. There has been no contact from the plumber since it came to investigate the issue nor from the landlord and the tenants are not aware of when or if the issue will be fixed.

The email evidence provided shows the tenants have followed the property manager up regarding these issues and rarely get any response. The requests for these issues to be investigated and remedied have been made on around a three-weekly basis. The tenants say they have repeatedly tried to call the property manager and she never answers the phone, nor does she come back 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]. to them with any updates or explanations for why these issues are not being addressed at all, let alone in a reasonable timeframe. The tenants have gone to the overseas owner to try and get these issues addressed, be the owner is also having difficulty in getting in touch with the property manager and getting her to have the repairs and maintenance issues resolved.

The landlord has failed to address the issues with the rangehood, the dirty carpet, the faulty shower door and the leaky faucet for nearly 17 weeks. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

The tenants have experienced inconvenience and loss of amenity over this 17- week period because of the property manager’s failure to get the repairs and maintenance carried out in a timely manner. These issues are not difficult issues to resolve and could have been completed promptly with a few calls to contractors that specialise in these property maintenance areas. Given the tenants pay $1,850.00 per week rent, they should be able to enjoy the amenities they are paying for and not be required to put themselves to the stress and inconvenience of continually having to follow the property manager up. I have awarded the tenants a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the 17- week period they have suffered this inconvenience and loss of amenity.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may also 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 am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew of the repairs and maintenance issues prior to the commencement of the tenancy and failed to have them repaired before the tenancy commenced and has still failed to do so in the last 17 weeks; b. the tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with the loss of the amenity and of having to repeatedly follow the property manager and now the owner up and remind them of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity for 17 weeks; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.

I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s45 of the RTA. accordingly. Failure to lodge the bond

[The tenants] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants paid the landlord the bond on 1 December 2023. The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre until 14 March 2024. I find the landlord has 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 find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $800.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for 104 days; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 104 days, and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests. Reimbursement of filing fee

Because [The applicants] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4845903 — net $4,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: (Failure to lodge bond	$800.00	(Failure to lodge bond
______________________________________________________________________________ 48459032 Exemplary damages: (Failure to r	$2,400.00	26. I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s45 of the RTA.
Compensation: (Inconvenience and loss of amenity- Rangehood, leaky faucet, dirty carpet and shower door	$1,700.00	(Inconvenience and loss of amenity- Rangehood, leaky faucet, dirty carpet and shower door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	32. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $800.00 in exemplary damages because: a.
Net award	$4,920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,920.44