What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850320 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4850320?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850320?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10485974-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850320 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4850320?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850320?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10485974-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4850320 — Leaks

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.
This order amends and replaces original order dated 14 June 2024 to reflect the correct respondent.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person.
The tenants filed an application for the following: -Work Orders x 5. -Compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises. -Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenants withdrew the claims for work orders at the hearing as some work has recently been completed such as replacement windows, bathroom upgrades, and electrical repairs.
The onus is on the tenants to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises and breach the tenants’ quit enjoyment?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching 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 RTA. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where 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 (section 109(3) RTA).
The landlord does not dispute there have been multiple issues at the premises since the start of the tenancy in 2016. They say that the majority have been fixed within a reasonable time, but they acknowledge that there have been multiple problems and some issues, such as driveway drainage and electrics have been ongoing for some time. The landlord confirmed that significant work has been done since 2021 to bring the premises up to Healthy Homes standards and the tenants moved out for approximately 2 weeks while some flooring was replaced.
I find that the landlord has breached their obligations, particularly with regards to roof leaks, electrical issues, and flooding in the driveway and section. The latter has only been properly investigated with local council just prior to the Tribunal hearing and it appears the soak hole has failed. The tenants have been dealing with extensive flooding in the driveway and around the section for the duration of this tenancy and they have had valid concerns with faulty power points. I also have concerns with the roof. Although an inspection in 2023 did not identify any signs of water damage or water ingress around the flashings and fascia boards, it also identified that the roof needs to be replaced in 2-5 years. The landlord has acknowledged signs of leaking inside the premises through the ceilings which requires further investigation. I also note that the rotten windows, bathroom upgrades, and recent electrical repairs, were only done after the tenant sent a 14- day notice and filed proceedings with the Tribunal. I also note there have been over 100 work orders for multiple issues at the premises, the extent of which was understated by the tenants in their oral evidence.
Weighed against that, I note that the landlord has been generally responsive albeit with some delays. This is a large property with 7 bedrooms and at least 9 occupants so I acknowledge there is a degree of accelerated wear and tear. There has also been some tenant damage and cleaning issues, but the tenants have used their best endeavours to put this right by repairing and painting, and by putting down metal in the driveway and section to help remediate the flooding.
Assessment of compensation is not an exact science and is a question of fact in each case. There are no general or absolute rules, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
Weighing all of these matters and the substantive merits and justice, I award $1,000.00 as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation for loss of amenity and inconvenience, which is equivalent to around 4 weeks rent.
I also find it ‘just’ to award $4,000.00 exemplary damages. The landlord has been aware of the repeated flooding, and electrical issues, since at least the end of 2020. The tenant has made repeated complaints about roof leaks since 2021. This poses a clear health and safety risk but the landlord appears to have adopted a reactive rather than a proactive response. In 2019, the landlord noted that the kitchen needed to be scoped for an upgrade because it was in a “really bad condition”, yet this was not done until 2021. The effect on the tenants and their large family has been considerable as they have had to put up with multiple and repeated disruptions.
Bearing this in mind, I also award $1,000.00 compensation for breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. While I accept that the landlord has been responding to notified issues, the repairs have been on repeat, ad hoc, and some are longstanding. The tenants are private people and they have been increasingly unhappy with the many tradesmen/contractors who have constantly been in and out of the premises. If the landlord had made timely and proactive work plans for necessary repairs and maintenance (which would have been obvious from inspections), the impact on the tenants would have been diminished.
I decline to make any award of exemplary damages as the landlord lacks the requisite intent for harassment. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
As the tenants have been substantially successful, they are entitled to name suppression as of right.

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.
This order amends and replaces original order dated 14 June 2024 to reflect the correct respondent.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person.
The tenants filed an application for the following: -Work Orders x 5. -Compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises. -Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenants withdrew the claims for work orders at the hearing as some work has recently been completed such as replacement windows, bathroom upgrades, and electrical repairs.
The onus is on the tenants to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises and breach the tenants’ quit enjoyment?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching 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 RTA. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where 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 (section 109(3) RTA).
The landlord does not dispute there have been multiple issues at the premises since the start of the tenancy in 2016. They say that the majority have been fixed within a reasonable time, but they acknowledge that there have been multiple problems and some issues, such as driveway drainage and electrics have been ongoing for some time. The landlord confirmed that significant work has been done since 2021 to bring the premises up to Healthy Homes standards and the tenants moved out for approximately 2 weeks while some flooring was replaced.
I find that the landlord has breached their obligations, particularly with regards to roof leaks, electrical issues, and flooding in the driveway and section. The latter has only been properly investigated with local council just prior to the Tribunal hearing and it appears the soak hole has failed. The tenants have been dealing with extensive flooding in the driveway and around the section for the duration of this tenancy and they have had valid concerns with faulty power points. I also have concerns with the roof. Although an inspection in 2023 did not identify any signs of water damage or water ingress around the flashings and fascia boards, it also identified that the roof needs to be replaced in 2-5 years. The landlord has acknowledged signs of leaking inside the premises through the ceilings which requires further investigation. I also note that the rotten windows, bathroom upgrades, and recent electrical repairs, were only done after the tenant sent a 14- day notice and filed proceedings with the Tribunal. I also note there have been over 100 work orders for multiple issues at the premises, the extent of which was understated by the tenants in their oral evidence.
Weighed against that, I note that the landlord has been generally responsive albeit with some delays. This is a large property with 7 bedrooms and at least 9 occupants so I acknowledge there is a degree of accelerated wear and tear. There has also been some tenant damage and cleaning issues, but the tenants have used their best endeavours to put this right by repairing and painting, and by putting down metal in the driveway and section to help remediate the flooding.
Assessment of compensation is not an exact science and is a question of fact in each case. There are no general or absolute rules, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
Weighing all of these matters and the substantive merits and justice, I award $1,000.00 as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation for loss of amenity and inconvenience, which is equivalent to around 4 weeks rent.
I also find it ‘just’ to award $4,000.00 exemplary damages. The landlord has been aware of the repeated flooding, and electrical issues, since at least the end of 2020. The tenant has made repeated complaints about roof leaks since 2021. This poses a clear health and safety risk but the landlord appears to have adopted a reactive rather than a proactive response. In 2019, the landlord noted that the kitchen needed to be scoped for an upgrade because it was in a “really bad condition”, yet this was not done until 2021. The effect on the tenants and their large family has been considerable as they have had to put up with multiple and repeated disruptions.
Bearing this in mind, I also award $1,000.00 compensation for breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. While I accept that the landlord has been responding to notified issues, the repairs have been on repeat, ad hoc, and some are longstanding. The tenants are private people and they have been increasingly unhappy with the many tradesmen/contractors who have constantly been in and out of the premises. If the landlord had made timely and proactive work plans for necessary repairs and maintenance (which would have been obvious from inspections), the impact on the tenants would have been diminished.
I decline to make any award of exemplary damages as the landlord lacks the requisite intent for harassment. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
As the tenants have been substantially successful, they are entitled to name suppression as of right.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850320 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850320 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions