What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4852733 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 4852733?

Compensation: $2,040.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852733?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10590935-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4852733 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 4852733?

Compensation: $2,040.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852733?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10590935-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4852733 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852733 — net $2,060.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,040.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,060.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,060.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and Nan Lin’s email address.
Rempstone Property Management Limited and Nan Lin must pay the tenants $2,060.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. To the extent that the landlords do not pay this sum to the tenants, it may be set off against rent payable.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Wednesday 31 July 2024. a. Remove two wardrobe doors from the garage. b. Remove mould from the upstairs ensuite window frame and sill and from around the toilet. To the extent necessary, remove the paint from the window frame and sill and sand and prepare the timber before painting so that the mould does not come back through the paint. c. Remove the fish from the fishpond, drain and clean the pond, fill with water and return the fish to the pond. d. Clean the jets in the ensuite spa bath so that when the bath is filled with water, it does not become discoloured or contaminated from the jets. e. Provide the tenant with an effective vacuum cleaner. f. Clean, repair or replace as necessary the kitchen extractor fan so that it works properly (not intermittently as it does at present). g. Repair the broken dining room table leg. h. Repair the two windows in the upstairs bedroom so that they open and close freely and can be held open. i. Clear the drains from the ensuite shower and basin so that they drain freely. j. Repair or replace the extractor fan in the ensuite bathroom as necessary. It is not working effectively at present. k. Properly secure the toilet seat to the bowl either by replacing the fixings or replacing the entire seat. l. Install insulation in the roof space where it is missing (approximately 2.5m x
5m).
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 3 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the cost of this work up to $2,000. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The tenants may undertake the work personally or by employing contractors. If they undertake the work or any of it personally, it must be completed to a reasonable standard and the cost claimed for materials and for the tenants’ time must be reasonable.

Reasons

Parties and Attendances

The tenants attended the hearing in person. Rempstone Property Management Limited (Rempstone) was represented by Ms Jung Lu and Ms Juliette Sun.
Nam Lim did not attend. She was not named on the application, but she is aware of the application. She is the owner of the premises and she formerly lived in them. She now lives overseas.
The tenancy agreement names Rempstone as the agent for the owner without naming the owner. It follows that the tenants are entitled to make this claim against Rempstone. It is also appropriate for Nan Lin to be added to the application and named in this order. Her address for service is [suppressed].
I note as well that Rempstone may not be the property manager for this tenancy for much longer. That will not affect this order because to the extent that the money due to the tenants under this order is not paid, they can set it off against rent payable. That means that they can stop paying rent up to the amount of money due to them before they resume paying rent. The Application
The tenants claim that the landlords have failed to comply with their obligations in certain respects including the landlords’ maintenance obligations. The tenant wants some things fixed and claims compensation for the loss of amenity and inconvenience arising from the landlords’ breach.
Section 45(1)(a) - (ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), imposes obligations on the landlord to provide and maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair and to comply with legislation applying to the premises in respect of health and safety.
Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work under s78(1)(e) of the Act.
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 (ss 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the Act.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord fails to comply with the work order and an 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 tenant against rent payable (ss78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) of the Act). Background
The tenancy started in January 2024. The tenants had problems with the premises from the outset including furniture and rubbish left in the premises, the uncleanliness of the premises, mould and items needing to be repaired.
The tenants reported all the issues to Rempstone and there has been written communication between them throughout the tenancy concerning maintenance issues.
Some items have been attended to and resolved and others have either not been attended to at all or the work carried out has not been satisfactory. Rempstone confirmed that the owner does not have the financial resources to meet all her obligations.
I note that the Tribunal made an order in 2023 in favour of the then tenants of the premises for the landlords’ failure to comply with their maintenance obligations. The money award to the tenants in that case was substantial. I was informed that the award was paid, and it is a shame that the landlord did not spend that money on complying with her obligations instead of having to paying it to tenants in compensation and exemplary damages. Discussion and Decision
There is no dispute that the landlords have failed to comply with their maintenance obligations in some respects. The landlords have accepted work orders in relation to eight of the items referred to in this order. That part of the order is therefore made by consent. I am satisfied that the other work referred to in the order must be done to comply with the landlords’ obligations.
I have allowed two weeks for the work to be completed. Assuming the landlords can fund the work, it is reasonable to expect the work to be completed within that time. I note that one of the tenants has experience of building maintenance and can do at least some of the work. He is likely to be able to do so more economically than the landlords’ contractors and so the landlords should seriously consider allowing him to carry out the work that he can do. If the landlords do not complete the work within two weeks, the tenants will be able to do the work in any case.
After considering what the landlord has paid to contractors to date, $2,000 for the cost of completing the necessary work is an appropriate limit to impose if the tenants must carry out the work themselves.
The tenants have had to put up with considerable inconvenience and loss of amenity arising from the landlords’ failure to comply with their obligations. As well as the loss of enjoyment in their use of the premises from the unsatisfactory condition of the premises, there have been numerous visits by contractors who have often failed to complete the work at all or to complete it to an adequate standard.
The tenants claim three weeks rent as compensation plus 25% rent reduction from the expiry of their breach notice. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that compensation equivalent to four weeks rent is reasonable and so I have made that award.
The tenants have succeeded and so the landlords must pay the filing fee.
The tenants are entitled to name suppression because they have succeeded.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852733 — net $2,060.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,040.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,060.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,060.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and Nan Lin’s email address.
Rempstone Property Management Limited and Nan Lin must pay the tenants $2,060.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. To the extent that the landlords do not pay this sum to the tenants, it may be set off against rent payable.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Wednesday 31 July 2024. a. Remove two wardrobe doors from the garage. b. Remove mould from the upstairs ensuite window frame and sill and from around the toilet. To the extent necessary, remove the paint from the window frame and sill and sand and prepare the timber before painting so that the mould does not come back through the paint. c. Remove the fish from the fishpond, drain and clean the pond, fill with water and return the fish to the pond. d. Clean the jets in the ensuite spa bath so that when the bath is filled with water, it does not become discoloured or contaminated from the jets. e. Provide the tenant with an effective vacuum cleaner. f. Clean, repair or replace as necessary the kitchen extractor fan so that it works properly (not intermittently as it does at present). g. Repair the broken dining room table leg. h. Repair the two windows in the upstairs bedroom so that they open and close freely and can be held open. i. Clear the drains from the ensuite shower and basin so that they drain freely. j. Repair or replace the extractor fan in the ensuite bathroom as necessary. It is not working effectively at present. k. Properly secure the toilet seat to the bowl either by replacing the fixings or replacing the entire seat. l. Install insulation in the roof space where it is missing (approximately 2.5m x
5m).
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 3 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the cost of this work up to $2,000. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The tenants may undertake the work personally or by employing contractors. If they undertake the work or any of it personally, it must be completed to a reasonable standard and the cost claimed for materials and for the tenants’ time must be reasonable.

Reasons

Parties and Attendances

The tenants attended the hearing in person. Rempstone Property Management Limited (Rempstone) was represented by Ms Jung Lu and Ms Juliette Sun.
Nam Lim did not attend. She was not named on the application, but she is aware of the application. She is the owner of the premises and she formerly lived in them. She now lives overseas.
The tenancy agreement names Rempstone as the agent for the owner without naming the owner. It follows that the tenants are entitled to make this claim against Rempstone. It is also appropriate for Nan Lin to be added to the application and named in this order. Her address for service is [suppressed].
I note as well that Rempstone may not be the property manager for this tenancy for much longer. That will not affect this order because to the extent that the money due to the tenants under this order is not paid, they can set it off against rent payable. That means that they can stop paying rent up to the amount of money due to them before they resume paying rent. The Application
The tenants claim that the landlords have failed to comply with their obligations in certain respects including the landlords’ maintenance obligations. The tenant wants some things fixed and claims compensation for the loss of amenity and inconvenience arising from the landlords’ breach.
Section 45(1)(a) - (ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), imposes obligations on the landlord to provide and maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair and to comply with legislation applying to the premises in respect of health and safety.
Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work under s78(1)(e) of the Act.
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 (ss 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the Act.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord fails to comply with the work order and an 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 tenant against rent payable (ss78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) of the Act). Background
The tenancy started in January 2024. The tenants had problems with the premises from the outset including furniture and rubbish left in the premises, the uncleanliness of the premises, mould and items needing to be repaired.
The tenants reported all the issues to Rempstone and there has been written communication between them throughout the tenancy concerning maintenance issues.
Some items have been attended to and resolved and others have either not been attended to at all or the work carried out has not been satisfactory. Rempstone confirmed that the owner does not have the financial resources to meet all her obligations.
I note that the Tribunal made an order in 2023 in favour of the then tenants of the premises for the landlords’ failure to comply with their maintenance obligations. The money award to the tenants in that case was substantial. I was informed that the award was paid, and it is a shame that the landlord did not spend that money on complying with her obligations instead of having to paying it to tenants in compensation and exemplary damages. Discussion and Decision
There is no dispute that the landlords have failed to comply with their maintenance obligations in some respects. The landlords have accepted work orders in relation to eight of the items referred to in this order. That part of the order is therefore made by consent. I am satisfied that the other work referred to in the order must be done to comply with the landlords’ obligations.
I have allowed two weeks for the work to be completed. Assuming the landlords can fund the work, it is reasonable to expect the work to be completed within that time. I note that one of the tenants has experience of building maintenance and can do at least some of the work. He is likely to be able to do so more economically than the landlords’ contractors and so the landlords should seriously consider allowing him to carry out the work that he can do. If the landlords do not complete the work within two weeks, the tenants will be able to do the work in any case.
After considering what the landlord has paid to contractors to date, $2,000 for the cost of completing the necessary work is an appropriate limit to impose if the tenants must carry out the work themselves.
The tenants have had to put up with considerable inconvenience and loss of amenity arising from the landlords’ failure to comply with their obligations. As well as the loss of enjoyment in their use of the premises from the unsatisfactory condition of the premises, there have been numerous visits by contractors who have often failed to complete the work at all or to complete it to an adequate standard.
The tenants claim three weeks rent as compensation plus 25% rent reduction from the expiry of their breach notice. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that compensation equivalent to four weeks rent is reasonable and so I have made that award.
The tenants have succeeded and so the landlords must pay the filing fee.
The tenants are entitled to name suppression because they have succeeded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852733 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852733 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions