What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903195 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 4903195?

Compensation: 50% Refund Of Rent: $6,003.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903195?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11143283-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903195 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 4903195?

Compensation: 50% Refund Of Rent: $6,003.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903195?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11143283-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[The tenancy address] Tenancy Tribunal Case 4903195 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903195 — net $7,023.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: 50% refund of rent	$6,003.00	50% refund of rent
Compensation: damaged personal items	$1,000.00	damaged personal items
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,023.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,023.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $7,023.44 immediately, as per below. This can be paid by way of a rent credit.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 rd October 2024.
The tenant was represented by Nathan Regal as counsel from the Auckland Community Law Centre.
At the end of the hearing, the parties were given an opportunity to file further information and counsel for the tenant did so.
After having considered all documents filed, I make my decision as follows. The claims
The tenancy was from 7 th March 2022 until 3 rd July 2023.
The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant claimed that the premises was in an “uninhabitable” state and should not have been rented out in the first place.
The tenant sought: a. $9,604.80 being 80% of rent rebate for the entire duration of the tenancy; b. $3,000.00 for water damaged personal possessions; c. $5,000.00 for emotional harm suffered by the tenant; and d. $7,200.00 for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain. The issues with the premises
From the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant raised concerns about mould in the storage area in bedroom three. The presence of mould was confirmed by the landlord’s team leader and on 22 nd April 2022 contractors undertook mould decontamination and treatment in the storage room and installed new gib in the storage room.
On 23 rd December 2022, the tenant’s son fell into the wall in his bedroom created a hole, revealing an infestation of beetles, black mould and wet insulation. As a temporary measure, the hole was covered with a piece of plywood which was then plastered and painted over in January 2023. The tenant was advised that this was a temporary measure until the leak in the roof was repaired.
On 9 th January 2023, the tenant reported a leak in the bathroom. The landlord attended to this issue on the same day and fixed the leak. The tenant claimed that as a result of the leak, a number of her possession were damaged valued at approximately $3,000.00.
On 8 th March 2023, the tenant raised further issues with the landlord including additional mould, a hole in the bedroom as well as guttering and a window latch that required fixing.
The window latch was fixed on 14 th March 2023 but a glass windowpane was cracked which was only rectified in early June 2023.
An inspection was carried out on 21 st March 2023 where a leak was identified in the roof. The tenant was advised that a tarp would be placed on the roof as a temporary measure but that did not eventuate as advised.
On 12 th and 19 th April 2023, mould specialists visited the premises. However, only temporary repairs could be completed as the leak in the roof needed to be fixed to stop the mould issue fundamentally.
On 27 th April 2023, the premises was added to the landlord’s roofing programme for a new roof.
On 7 th June 2023, a potential transfer was discussed with the tenant to another premises. The tenant found out that the next-door neighbour was moving out and on 28 th June 2023, the tenant secured the landlord’s permission to move next door. On 3 rd July 2023, the tenant was moved next door.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord demolished the premises as the premises not only needed a new roof, but it had foundation issues as well with rotten piles and bearers.
There was evidence that there were wiring issues in the laundry also. Compensation
The landlord accepted that the premises had issues and was not disputing that some compensation should be awarded to the tenant.
There was evidence of multiple soft walls to the touch from the roof leaking from upstairs. The downstairs area was also suffering from mould due to the inadequate foundation.
There were also wooden window frames that were not weathertight and the wastewater gully trap was not properly connected resulting in foul water being discharged onto the property itself.
The tenant’s counsel claimed that the tenant should have been transferred to a different property or very least to a temporary accommodation much earlier than she was.
However, the tenant only served the landlord with a written 14-day notice on 12 th April 2023 and did not take up the landlord’s offer to relocate her sooner due to wanting to stay within the locality for her children’s schooling purposes.
I find that the landlord did not provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and breached their obligations under section 45 RTA.
Breaching section 45 RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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) RTA.
Having seen the evidence, I agree that the premises would not have been rented out in the first place if the extent of the issues were known to the landlord from the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord had demolished the premises after this tenancy ended as it was more cost effective to do so than to remedy the multitude of issues.
However, I do not find that the landlord knew the extent of the issues at the beginning of the tenancy. I do not find that there was any intentional failure by the landlord. There was evidence of the landlord attended to the issues fairly diligently. Ultimately, it came down to whether or not it would be financially viable to repair the roof and the foundation. I do not find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages in this case.
I find by a fine margin that the premises was not uninhabitable at the time of tenancy.
I find that the appropriate rent rebate is 50 percent calculated from the beginning of the tenancy.
I find that the inadequate condition of the premises caused damaged to the tenant’s belongings. I award $1,000.00 acknowledging the depreciate value of the tenant’s belongings.
I accept that the tenant would have been stressed from the condition of the premises and the disruption of the tradespeople coming in and out. However, I do not find it warrants any additional amount for emotional distress.
As the tenant substantially succeed with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord can pay the tenant the amount ordered by way of rent credit.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903195 — net $7,023.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: 50% refund of rent	$6,003.00	50% refund of rent
Compensation: damaged personal items	$1,000.00	damaged personal items
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,023.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,023.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $7,023.44 immediately, as per below. This can be paid by way of a rent credit.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 rd October 2024.
The tenant was represented by Nathan Regal as counsel from the Auckland Community Law Centre.
At the end of the hearing, the parties were given an opportunity to file further information and counsel for the tenant did so.
After having considered all documents filed, I make my decision as follows. The claims
The tenancy was from 7 th March 2022 until 3 rd July 2023.
The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant claimed that the premises was in an “uninhabitable” state and should not have been rented out in the first place.
The tenant sought: a. $9,604.80 being 80% of rent rebate for the entire duration of the tenancy; b. $3,000.00 for water damaged personal possessions; c. $5,000.00 for emotional harm suffered by the tenant; and d. $7,200.00 for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain. The issues with the premises
From the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant raised concerns about mould in the storage area in bedroom three. The presence of mould was confirmed by the landlord’s team leader and on 22 nd April 2022 contractors undertook mould decontamination and treatment in the storage room and installed new gib in the storage room.
On 23 rd December 2022, the tenant’s son fell into the wall in his bedroom created a hole, revealing an infestation of beetles, black mould and wet insulation. As a temporary measure, the hole was covered with a piece of plywood which was then plastered and painted over in January 2023. The tenant was advised that this was a temporary measure until the leak in the roof was repaired.
On 9 th January 2023, the tenant reported a leak in the bathroom. The landlord attended to this issue on the same day and fixed the leak. The tenant claimed that as a result of the leak, a number of her possession were damaged valued at approximately $3,000.00.
On 8 th March 2023, the tenant raised further issues with the landlord including additional mould, a hole in the bedroom as well as guttering and a window latch that required fixing.
The window latch was fixed on 14 th March 2023 but a glass windowpane was cracked which was only rectified in early June 2023.
An inspection was carried out on 21 st March 2023 where a leak was identified in the roof. The tenant was advised that a tarp would be placed on the roof as a temporary measure but that did not eventuate as advised.
On 12 th and 19 th April 2023, mould specialists visited the premises. However, only temporary repairs could be completed as the leak in the roof needed to be fixed to stop the mould issue fundamentally.
On 27 th April 2023, the premises was added to the landlord’s roofing programme for a new roof.
On 7 th June 2023, a potential transfer was discussed with the tenant to another premises. The tenant found out that the next-door neighbour was moving out and on 28 th June 2023, the tenant secured the landlord’s permission to move next door. On 3 rd July 2023, the tenant was moved next door.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord demolished the premises as the premises not only needed a new roof, but it had foundation issues as well with rotten piles and bearers.
There was evidence that there were wiring issues in the laundry also. Compensation
The landlord accepted that the premises had issues and was not disputing that some compensation should be awarded to the tenant.
There was evidence of multiple soft walls to the touch from the roof leaking from upstairs. The downstairs area was also suffering from mould due to the inadequate foundation.
There were also wooden window frames that were not weathertight and the wastewater gully trap was not properly connected resulting in foul water being discharged onto the property itself.
The tenant’s counsel claimed that the tenant should have been transferred to a different property or very least to a temporary accommodation much earlier than she was.
However, the tenant only served the landlord with a written 14-day notice on 12 th April 2023 and did not take up the landlord’s offer to relocate her sooner due to wanting to stay within the locality for her children’s schooling purposes.
I find that the landlord did not provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and breached their obligations under section 45 RTA.
Breaching section 45 RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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) RTA.
Having seen the evidence, I agree that the premises would not have been rented out in the first place if the extent of the issues were known to the landlord from the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord had demolished the premises after this tenancy ended as it was more cost effective to do so than to remedy the multitude of issues.
However, I do not find that the landlord knew the extent of the issues at the beginning of the tenancy. I do not find that there was any intentional failure by the landlord. There was evidence of the landlord attended to the issues fairly diligently. Ultimately, it came down to whether or not it would be financially viable to repair the roof and the foundation. I do not find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages in this case.
I find by a fine margin that the premises was not uninhabitable at the time of tenancy.
I find that the appropriate rent rebate is 50 percent calculated from the beginning of the tenancy.
I find that the inadequate condition of the premises caused damaged to the tenant’s belongings. I award $1,000.00 acknowledging the depreciate value of the tenant’s belongings.
I accept that the tenant would have been stressed from the condition of the premises and the disruption of the tradespeople coming in and out. However, I do not find it warrants any additional amount for emotional distress.
As the tenant substantially succeed with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord can pay the tenant the amount ordered by way of rent credit.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903195 — Property damage at [The tenancy address]

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903195 — Property damage at [The tenancy address]

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