What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4884641 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities Susan Rea must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4884641?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884641?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4884641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11067293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4884641 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities Susan Rea must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4884641?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884641?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4884641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11067293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Gila Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4884641 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4884641 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages Failure to maintain	$600.00	Exemplary damages Failure to maintain
Net award	$600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$600.00

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities Susan Rea must pay [The tenant/s] $600.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing. This matter has been part heard by me on two previous occasions on the 27 June and 26 September and I refer to the adjournment decisions made at the end of the hearings.
The tenant complained to Kāinga Ora about her fence in March this year. The tenant complained that the fence was in disrepair and had gaps in it which had been caused by people fighting outside the property who had taken the wooden palings off the fence to use as weapons against each other. The tenant also requested that the fence be replaced with a higher fence to stop her dogs being able to jump over the fence and stray dogs coming on to her property.
Kāinga Ora sent a contractor to look at the fence in April, the contractor assessed the fence as needing repair or replacement. The contractor told the tenant in a text message dated 4 April 2024 that he had scoped the fence for replacement.
Kāinga Ora had a contractor do some repairs on the fence in April and May. The tenant was not happy with the repairs and complained about the standard of work completed. The tenant brought this claim for failure to repair and maintain.
After the hearing on the 26 September 2024, I made a finding that the landlord had failed to maintain the fence and ordered the landlord to do work on the property. I adjourned the hearing to allow that work to occur.
The work has now been completed. The fence is functional. There are some nails that still are sticking out, but the tenant has said that she will hammer these in. Kāinga Ora agree that she can do this.
As the fence has now been repaired, I turn now to the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for the failure to maintain.
Under section 45 (1)(b) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching that obligation 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.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not maintain the fence to a reasonable state of repair from March 2024 when the tenant notified the landlord of the problems until after the work order was completed on the 18 October 2024. In particular I note that repair work that was completed in April, left the fence with gaps, unstable posts (that needed to be concreted in) and a significant number of nails sticking out from the post and rails. 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.
I am satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally. The repair work that was done was substandard and dangerous to the children and animals living in the home. Nails were left sticking out of the fence at a height that could easily injure a child who brushed up or leaned on the fence. A post was not concreted into the ground meaning that the fence lacked stability. There were gaps in the fence from March to April which meant the tenant could not allow the children to play in the yard because they could have got out onto the busy road that affronted the property.
The tenant tells me that this ordeal has had a significant effect on her, she thought she was doing the right thing by notifying her landlord of the defects with the fence in March and when the repair job was done complaining about the defects in repair. However, she has says she has felt not listened to, and targeted. As a result of her complaints, she has received 3x 14 day notice letters from Kāinga Ora asking her to remove her dogs (even though the tenant says Kāinga Ora knew that she had dogs), and says that she now does not know who her tenancy manager is or have any recourse for problems at the tenancy. The tenant says that she felt powerless and that believes that Kāinga Ora treated her as being a ‘troublemaker’ rather than having legitimate concerns that warranted investigation.
There is public interest in making an award against Kāinga Ora. The tenant had a legitimate complaint about the safety and condition of the fence that warranted investigation and repair. My observation was that the tenant’s concerns were not taken seriously, and she was viewed as simply wanting a better fence for her dogs, rather than Kāinga Ora considering the actual issues with the fence, which were immediately evident to anyone looking at the fence.
The repair work done by the contractors in April was well below a standard that was acceptable. The repair work left the fence in an unsafe condition.
The public expects that the state’s housing provider to engage with contractors who will repair items to a reasonable level. The taxpayer is paying for those repairs, and like any consumer would expect the job to be done once and to the professional standard. The public also expects that the state provider ensure that its houses and facilities are safe and maintained to a reasonable standard. When the state fails to meet this obligation, then it is appropriate that an award is made.
It is also in the public interest that any award made reflects that current economic conditions and that the funds are paid for by the taxpayer. The award made must be modest. I have therefore awarded the tenant $600 for this breach. The dogs.
In my adjournment decision of the 26 September, I noted that I would also deal with the issue as to whether the tenant is allowed to keep her dogs [Dog 1] and [Dog 2] at the property. Kāinga Ora say that they did not give permission and did not know that [Dog 1] and [Dog 2] lived at the property. They say that the fence that is at the property is not adequate height for these dogs.
The tenant disputes this, she says that Kāinga Ora were aware that she had two dogs, that her tenancy managers have seen the dogs, that she took advantage of the desexing and registration programme run in conjunction with Kāinga Ora in June 2023.
Kāinga Ora have issued 3 x breach notices for the dogs but have not applied to the Tribunal for the dogs to be removed.
The tenant is anxious to have the issue of whether she can keep the dogs resolved.
At today’s hearing it was agreed that the tenant could keep the dogs at the property on a without prejudice right to Kāinga Ora making a claim to the Tribunal for a declaration in respect of whether the tenant can keep her dogs at the property.
Kāinga Ora should apply for a declaration by the Tribunal if it believes that the tenant is in breach of her obligations. I do not consider it appropriate for Kāinga Ora to simply send breach notice after breach notice yet not bring this disputed issue to the Tribunal for determination. Continuing to send breach notices threatening termination when the landlord knows that this is a disputed issue may give rise to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant her name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4884641 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages Failure to maintain	$600.00	Exemplary damages Failure to maintain
Net award	$600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$600.00

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities Susan Rea must pay [The tenant/s] $600.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing. This matter has been part heard by me on two previous occasions on the 27 June and 26 September and I refer to the adjournment decisions made at the end of the hearings.
The tenant complained to Kāinga Ora about her fence in March this year. The tenant complained that the fence was in disrepair and had gaps in it which had been caused by people fighting outside the property who had taken the wooden palings off the fence to use as weapons against each other. The tenant also requested that the fence be replaced with a higher fence to stop her dogs being able to jump over the fence and stray dogs coming on to her property.
Kāinga Ora sent a contractor to look at the fence in April, the contractor assessed the fence as needing repair or replacement. The contractor told the tenant in a text message dated 4 April 2024 that he had scoped the fence for replacement.
Kāinga Ora had a contractor do some repairs on the fence in April and May. The tenant was not happy with the repairs and complained about the standard of work completed. The tenant brought this claim for failure to repair and maintain.
After the hearing on the 26 September 2024, I made a finding that the landlord had failed to maintain the fence and ordered the landlord to do work on the property. I adjourned the hearing to allow that work to occur.
The work has now been completed. The fence is functional. There are some nails that still are sticking out, but the tenant has said that she will hammer these in. Kāinga Ora agree that she can do this.
As the fence has now been repaired, I turn now to the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for the failure to maintain.
Under section 45 (1)(b) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching that obligation 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.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not maintain the fence to a reasonable state of repair from March 2024 when the tenant notified the landlord of the problems until after the work order was completed on the 18 October 2024. In particular I note that repair work that was completed in April, left the fence with gaps, unstable posts (that needed to be concreted in) and a significant number of nails sticking out from the post and rails. 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.
I am satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally. The repair work that was done was substandard and dangerous to the children and animals living in the home. Nails were left sticking out of the fence at a height that could easily injure a child who brushed up or leaned on the fence. A post was not concreted into the ground meaning that the fence lacked stability. There were gaps in the fence from March to April which meant the tenant could not allow the children to play in the yard because they could have got out onto the busy road that affronted the property.
The tenant tells me that this ordeal has had a significant effect on her, she thought she was doing the right thing by notifying her landlord of the defects with the fence in March and when the repair job was done complaining about the defects in repair. However, she has says she has felt not listened to, and targeted. As a result of her complaints, she has received 3x 14 day notice letters from Kāinga Ora asking her to remove her dogs (even though the tenant says Kāinga Ora knew that she had dogs), and says that she now does not know who her tenancy manager is or have any recourse for problems at the tenancy. The tenant says that she felt powerless and that believes that Kāinga Ora treated her as being a ‘troublemaker’ rather than having legitimate concerns that warranted investigation.
There is public interest in making an award against Kāinga Ora. The tenant had a legitimate complaint about the safety and condition of the fence that warranted investigation and repair. My observation was that the tenant’s concerns were not taken seriously, and she was viewed as simply wanting a better fence for her dogs, rather than Kāinga Ora considering the actual issues with the fence, which were immediately evident to anyone looking at the fence.
The repair work done by the contractors in April was well below a standard that was acceptable. The repair work left the fence in an unsafe condition.
The public expects that the state’s housing provider to engage with contractors who will repair items to a reasonable level. The taxpayer is paying for those repairs, and like any consumer would expect the job to be done once and to the professional standard. The public also expects that the state provider ensure that its houses and facilities are safe and maintained to a reasonable standard. When the state fails to meet this obligation, then it is appropriate that an award is made.
It is also in the public interest that any award made reflects that current economic conditions and that the funds are paid for by the taxpayer. The award made must be modest. I have therefore awarded the tenant $600 for this breach. The dogs.
In my adjournment decision of the 26 September, I noted that I would also deal with the issue as to whether the tenant is allowed to keep her dogs [Dog 1] and [Dog 2] at the property. Kāinga Ora say that they did not give permission and did not know that [Dog 1] and [Dog 2] lived at the property. They say that the fence that is at the property is not adequate height for these dogs.
The tenant disputes this, she says that Kāinga Ora were aware that she had two dogs, that her tenancy managers have seen the dogs, that she took advantage of the desexing and registration programme run in conjunction with Kāinga Ora in June 2023.
Kāinga Ora have issued 3 x breach notices for the dogs but have not applied to the Tribunal for the dogs to be removed.
The tenant is anxious to have the issue of whether she can keep the dogs resolved.
At today’s hearing it was agreed that the tenant could keep the dogs at the property on a without prejudice right to Kāinga Ora making a claim to the Tribunal for a declaration in respect of whether the tenant can keep her dogs at the property.
Kāinga Ora should apply for a declaration by the Tribunal if it believes that the tenant is in breach of her obligations. I do not consider it appropriate for Kāinga Ora to simply send breach notice after breach notice yet not bring this disputed issue to the Tribunal for determination. Continuing to send breach notices threatening termination when the landlord knows that this is a disputed issue may give rise to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant her name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4884641 — State of repair at 1 Gila Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4884641 — State of repair at 1 Gila Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions