What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877400 about?

The tribunal order states: Central West Property Management Ltd T/A L J Hooker Ponsonby As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4877400?

Compensation: Dishwasher: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Oven: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877400?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11047548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877400 about?

The tribunal order states: Central West Property Management Ltd T/A L J Hooker Ponsonby As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4877400?

Compensation: Dishwasher: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Oven: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877400?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11047548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

48 Princeton Parade, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4877400 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4877400 — net $6,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Oven	$500.00	Oven
Compensation: Dishwasher	$300.00	Dishwasher
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$5,200.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,020.44

Order

Central West Property Management Ltd T/A L J Hooker Ponsonby As Agent For Charles Yang must pay [The tenant/s] $6,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The claim related to the Healthy Homes standards is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenancy began on 22 June 2019 and ended on 20 March 2024.
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The claim relating to Healthy Homes standards does not apply to this tenancy because the Healthy Homes compliance date was not until 1 July 2025. That part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant applied for compensation in relation to the oven at the premises. The tenant said that the oven was faulty and filthy at the beginning of the tenancy. She said it was so dirty that there was smoke coming from it when it was turned on. It seems that the oven was not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant attempted to clean the oven before using it. The door of the oven also needed to be repaired because it did not close properly. The oven was eventually replaced in May 2022, three years after the tenancy commenced.
The landlord said that the issue with the oven was in relation to cleaning and that the tenant had tried to clean it. The landlord said that while the oven smelt it was still usable and that the oven door was fixed in 2020.
It is not acceptable that the tenant needed to clean the oven in order to use it. Also, there was no evidence produced to show that the oven was still usable. If the oven was still usable then it would not need to be replaced.
I have awarded compensation of $500.00 to the tenant for loss of amenity in relation to the oven.
The tenant applied for compensation in relation to the dishwasher which she said broke in February 2022. At the time the tenant was advised that only one appliance could be replaced, and the tenant chose the oven. The dishwasher was replaced in January 2024.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she was told only one appliance could be replaced. There was no evidence from the landlord that there was any attempt to repair or replace the dishwasher before January 2024.
I have awarded compensation of $300.00 to the tenant for loss of amenity in relation to the dishwasher.
[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 failed to maintain the roof and guttering to avoid flooding. 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.
The landlord failed to address the flooding issue which began in March 2022. Other than arranging for silicone to be applied the issue was not properly addressed until February 2023 when an extra downpipe was installed. The tenant claimed compensation in relation to flooding that occurred at the premises. The first flooding event occurred around 3am on 21 March 2022. There were further leaks including in May 2022, November 2022, and January 2023. The water entered the kitchen area and flowed through to the dining room and bedroom. The water came out of the ceiling light fittings.
The leaking was caused because an extra downpipe was needed to clear the water from the roof. Without it the water overflowed into the roof cavity and down through the ceiling. In June 2022 the landlord paid a plumber to apply silicone, but this was unlikely to fix the issue. The extra downpipe was not installed until February 2023 which meant that the tenant experienced several flood events that were avoidable.
The landlord did not provide any assistance to the tenant after any of the floods. The tenant was left to clean and dry the extensive water damage to the carpet. This required hiring special equipment and using power and time to run the machinery. The tenant took days off work to be available to deal with the flooding.
The tenant could not use the kitchen for periods of time due to the flooding and did not use the lights where the water had flowed from the fittings for several days after each flood. I note that the landlord did not employ an electrician to ensure that the electrics were safe after the flooding events.
In November 2022 the landlord asked the tenant to use the landlord’s ladder to climb up and check whether the guttering was blocked and to take photographs. This is a maintenance issue and was the responsibility of the landlord not the tenant.
On 27 January 2023 the soffit completely collapsed due to the amount of water backing up. This event could have been avoided if the landlord had repaired the issue which cause the first flood in March 2022.
In March 2023 large holes were cut in the walls of the premises due to the water damage. The soaked insulation was removed, and the holes were left open. The tenant said that the place smelt due to the dampness. The holes were not closed until 10 October 2023.
The landlord did not lodge an insurance claim until after the January 2023 flood. I note that on 11 April 2023 the insurance company said that the carpet could not be cleaned because it had been wet for too long. Soon afterward the landlord received an insurance payout of $2,407.00 for the indemnity value of the carpet. The carpet at the premises was replaced after the tenancy ended. This meant that the tenants lived for two years with wet, damp, mouldy and smelly carpet.
The repeated flooding had had a significant impact on the tenant. They have spent time and money cleaning up the flooding including taking time off work. They have also had loss of amenity in relation to the kitchen and dining room which they stopped using. There was no assistance from the landlord and no rent rebate offered. Instead, the landlord increased the weekly rent in November 2023.
I have calculated the exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s failure to maintain at $50.00 per week for the 104 weeks from the first flood until the end of the tenancy. This amounts to $5,200.00.
While the landlord applied for compensation in relation to the flooding and the impact it had I have decided to award exemplary damages rather than compensation. The award for exemplary damages takes account of the evidence presented by the tenant and the total impact that the flooding had on the tenant.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4877400 — net $6,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Oven	$500.00	Oven
Compensation: Dishwasher	$300.00	Dishwasher
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$5,200.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,020.44

Order

Central West Property Management Ltd T/A L J Hooker Ponsonby As Agent For Charles Yang must pay [The tenant/s] $6,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The claim related to the Healthy Homes standards is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenancy began on 22 June 2019 and ended on 20 March 2024.
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The claim relating to Healthy Homes standards does not apply to this tenancy because the Healthy Homes compliance date was not until 1 July 2025. That part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant applied for compensation in relation to the oven at the premises. The tenant said that the oven was faulty and filthy at the beginning of the tenancy. She said it was so dirty that there was smoke coming from it when it was turned on. It seems that the oven was not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant attempted to clean the oven before using it. The door of the oven also needed to be repaired because it did not close properly. The oven was eventually replaced in May 2022, three years after the tenancy commenced.
The landlord said that the issue with the oven was in relation to cleaning and that the tenant had tried to clean it. The landlord said that while the oven smelt it was still usable and that the oven door was fixed in 2020.
It is not acceptable that the tenant needed to clean the oven in order to use it. Also, there was no evidence produced to show that the oven was still usable. If the oven was still usable then it would not need to be replaced.
I have awarded compensation of $500.00 to the tenant for loss of amenity in relation to the oven.
The tenant applied for compensation in relation to the dishwasher which she said broke in February 2022. At the time the tenant was advised that only one appliance could be replaced, and the tenant chose the oven. The dishwasher was replaced in January 2024.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she was told only one appliance could be replaced. There was no evidence from the landlord that there was any attempt to repair or replace the dishwasher before January 2024.
I have awarded compensation of $300.00 to the tenant for loss of amenity in relation to the dishwasher.
[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 failed to maintain the roof and guttering to avoid flooding. 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.
The landlord failed to address the flooding issue which began in March 2022. Other than arranging for silicone to be applied the issue was not properly addressed until February 2023 when an extra downpipe was installed. The tenant claimed compensation in relation to flooding that occurred at the premises. The first flooding event occurred around 3am on 21 March 2022. There were further leaks including in May 2022, November 2022, and January 2023. The water entered the kitchen area and flowed through to the dining room and bedroom. The water came out of the ceiling light fittings.
The leaking was caused because an extra downpipe was needed to clear the water from the roof. Without it the water overflowed into the roof cavity and down through the ceiling. In June 2022 the landlord paid a plumber to apply silicone, but this was unlikely to fix the issue. The extra downpipe was not installed until February 2023 which meant that the tenant experienced several flood events that were avoidable.
The landlord did not provide any assistance to the tenant after any of the floods. The tenant was left to clean and dry the extensive water damage to the carpet. This required hiring special equipment and using power and time to run the machinery. The tenant took days off work to be available to deal with the flooding.
The tenant could not use the kitchen for periods of time due to the flooding and did not use the lights where the water had flowed from the fittings for several days after each flood. I note that the landlord did not employ an electrician to ensure that the electrics were safe after the flooding events.
In November 2022 the landlord asked the tenant to use the landlord’s ladder to climb up and check whether the guttering was blocked and to take photographs. This is a maintenance issue and was the responsibility of the landlord not the tenant.
On 27 January 2023 the soffit completely collapsed due to the amount of water backing up. This event could have been avoided if the landlord had repaired the issue which cause the first flood in March 2022.
In March 2023 large holes were cut in the walls of the premises due to the water damage. The soaked insulation was removed, and the holes were left open. The tenant said that the place smelt due to the dampness. The holes were not closed until 10 October 2023.
The landlord did not lodge an insurance claim until after the January 2023 flood. I note that on 11 April 2023 the insurance company said that the carpet could not be cleaned because it had been wet for too long. Soon afterward the landlord received an insurance payout of $2,407.00 for the indemnity value of the carpet. The carpet at the premises was replaced after the tenancy ended. This meant that the tenants lived for two years with wet, damp, mouldy and smelly carpet.
The repeated flooding had had a significant impact on the tenant. They have spent time and money cleaning up the flooding including taking time off work. They have also had loss of amenity in relation to the kitchen and dining room which they stopped using. There was no assistance from the landlord and no rent rebate offered. Instead, the landlord increased the weekly rent in November 2023.
I have calculated the exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s failure to maintain at $50.00 per week for the 104 weeks from the first flood until the end of the tenancy. This amounts to $5,200.00.
While the landlord applied for compensation in relation to the flooding and the impact it had I have decided to award exemplary damages rather than compensation. The award for exemplary damages takes account of the evidence presented by the tenant and the total impact that the flooding had on the tenant.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877400 — State of repair at 48 Princeton Parade, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877400 — State of repair at 48 Princeton Parade, Albany, Auckland 0632

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