How much money was awarded in case 4855760?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855760?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10682595-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4855760?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855760?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10682595-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855760 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855760 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855760 — net $1,320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to delayed repair	$500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to delayed repair
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,320.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,320.44

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.

Auckland Property Management Solutions Limited trading as Ray White - Youngs Rental as agent for the trustees of the Turnbull Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $1,320.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The tenants’ application for a work order is withdrawn.

The tenants’ application to reduce the term of the tenancy is dismissed.

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Yang represented the landlord.

The tenants have applied for a work order; a reduction of the term of the term of the tenancy; compensation for the landlord’s failure to repair the front door and lock; and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonable condition (the front door).

As the work has now been done, the tenants withdrew their application for a work order.

The landlord has applied for reimbursement of the costs of the front door repair. Background

The tenants are immigrants to New Zealand. They arrived about 2.5 years ago.

The have a child with serious medical conditions who requires hospitalisation at short notice, sometimes during the night.

The tenants viewed the premises in January 2024 one month before the tenancy started on 26 February 2024. The tenancy is for a 1-year fixed term.

When they viewed the premises, they were shown in through the (back) kitchen door. They asked Mr Yang whether the (front) ranch slider door opened. He confirmed that it did.

When they took possession, they discovered that the front door can only open from the inside, not from the outside. They never received a key to the door.

When the tenants have to drive their child to hospital or bring him home (sometimes in the dark) they must leave the child in the car while they go inside to open the front door. It is awkward for them to take the child through the back door, especially when it is dark.

The tenants repeatedly asked for the front door to be repaired.

The landlord considered they had no legal obligation to do so; there was no legal requirement for the front door to have to open from the outside, so long as it opened from inside.

The tenants eventually issued a 14-day notice to the landlord. A mediation followed. The tenants said that the landlord still would not agree to repairing the front door.

The landlord later agreed to do the work which was completed on 23 May 2024.

The landlord would not agree to shorten the tenancy or to pay the tenants compensation and/or exemplary damages (the application was amended to include an application for exemplary damages).

The landlord cross applied. It seeks the cost of the door repair and lock replacement, a total of $681.36. Relevant legal considerations Compensation

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Landlord’s responsibilities

Section 45(1) RTA provides in part: Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; Reduction of the term of a tenancy

Section 66 RTA deals with the reduction of a fixed term tenancy. It provides in part: Reduction or termination of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced. (2) Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. Analysis Work order

As I have noted, the tenants withdrew their application for a work order, the front door repairs having been completed. Reduction of the term of the tenancy

The Tribunal cannot reduce the term of the tenancy because there has been no unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances.

Section 66(1) RTA is a test of high threshold. A breakdown in communication between the parties is not sufficient. Here, the application was made because the landlord would not repair the front door. But the work has now been done. The 14-day notice the tenants served on the landlord achieved its desired effect.

The tenants queried whether the Tribunal could change the tenancy to a periodic tenancy. Mr Yang opposed that.

The Tribunal cannot simply interfere with or change contracts. There is no legal basis for the Tribunal to change the status of the tenancy.

The application to reduce the term of the tenancy is dismissed. The application does not pass the first part of the statutory test – an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. Compensation

Mr Yang’s insistence that there was no legal requirement for the front door to be openable from both within and without is not one the Tribunal accepts. He seemed to suggest that because the RTA does not specifically refer to it, the landlord had no obligation to undertake the repair.

Section 45(1) RTA sets out the landlord’s responsibilities. As I demonstrated at the hearing, it is a reasonable expectation that a door will be able to be used for its intended purpose which means it can open both from the inside and the outside.

The RTA does not specify that because it does not have to (nor could it; if every part of every house had to be specified the legislation would be unworkable).

Mr Yang kept pressing this point, but when I challenged him, he admitted that the legal advice he had received was that it would be ‘best practice’ for the landlord to ensure the operation of the door an intended.

And when challenged further he said it was the owner of the premises who resisted doing the work.

When property management companies become agents for the owner, they usually are not liable for the owner’s actions. But here, Mr Yang was insistent that the owner had no legal responsibility to repair the front door. He was the person the tenants dealt with. He was the one who resisted their (quite reasonable) request for the repair.

For that reason, the Tribunal has made the order against the landlord company as agent. It will be for the landlord to address the financial consequences with the owner trustees.

The tenants experienced an objective loss of enjoyment of the tenancy by not being able to use the front door as intended – openable from inside and out. Their loss of enjoyment was compounded by the needs of their unwell child. Mr Yang and, it seems, the owner, were unmoved by that, maintaining the position that there was no legal requirement for this work to be done. They were wrong.

I award the tenants compensation of $500.00 for their loss of use and enjoyment of the tenancy, taking account of the Birch principles – nature, duration, and effect of the breach. Exemplary damages

A failure by a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act – see section 45(1A) RTA - for which exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 can be awarded.

The evidence I heard, including Mr Yang’s insistence that there was no obligation on the landlord to ensure the front door opened from outside, demonstrates the necessary element of intent. I can infer intent also from the owner’s actions given Mr Yang’s evidence. He said it was the owner, not him, who opposed the repair (which was at odds with his submissions generally).

The landlord’s actions failing to comply with its section 45(1) RTA responsibilities was against the tenants’ interests and against the public interest. It also had an effect on the tenants. Their distress at the hearing was apparent, something Mr Yang seemed indifferent to.

For this unlawful act, I award the tenants exemplary damages of $800.00. This award recognises the limited duration of the breach. It is intended both to punish the landlord and to deter the landlord from a similar breach in the future. The landlord’s application

It follows from my findings on the tenants’ application that the landlord’s application is dismissed. It was the landlord’s responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The door in question (the front door) and only one of two, should have been maintained so it was openable from within and without. Result

The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

The landlord will pay the tenants compensation of $500.00 and exemplary damages of $800.00 as well as the filing fee of $20.44, a total of $1,320.44.

The landlord’s application is dismissed. Name suppression

The tenants applied for, and are entitled to, an order for name suppression. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as its application is unsuccessful.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855760 — net $1,320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to delayed repair	$500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment due to delayed repair
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,320.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,320.44