What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4921614 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 4921614?

Water Rates: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: S45(1)(A) Breach: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- bath…: $1,242.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- kitc…: $3,908.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- pain…: $1,338.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rott…: $1,348.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rump…: $2,697.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- tree…: $2,697.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- wate…: $2,697.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921614?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Exemplary damages, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921614?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11382536-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4921614 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 4921614?

Water Rates: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: S45(1)(A) Breach: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- bath…: $1,242.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- kitc…: $3,908.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- pain…: $1,338.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rott…: $1,348.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rump…: $2,697.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- tree…: $2,697.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- wate…: $2,697.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921614?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks, Exemplary damages, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921614?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11382536-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4921614 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4921614 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921614 — net $25,070.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: Water rates contribution to arrears	$100.00		3. The landlord applied for water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Compensation: s45(1)(a) breach		$300.00	s45(1)(a) breach
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rumpus window leak		$2,697.14	s45(1)(b) breach- rumpus window leak
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- water leak		$2,697.14	s45(1)(b) breach- water leak
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- bathtub		$1,242.86	s45(1)(b) breach- bathtub
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- paint work		$1,338.57	s45(1)(b) breach- paint work
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- kitchen floor		$3,908.57	s45(1)(b) breach- kitchen floor
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- trees		$2,697.14	s45(1)(b) breach- trees
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rotten window frames		$1,348.57	s45(1)(b) breach- rotten window frames
Exemplary damages: s45(1) breaches		$5,400.00	s45(1) breaches
Exemplary damages: No HHS info in TA and		$750.00	No HHS info in TA and
Exemplary damages: HHS info not provided on request		$750.00	HHS info not provided on request
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment and		$2,000.00	170. I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$100.00	$25,170.87
Net award		$25,070.87
Bond		$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$25,070.87

Claims and awards for application 4921614 — net $25,070.87 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning: Water rates contribution to arrears

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 3. The landlord applied for water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Compensation: s45(1)(a) breach

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: s45(1)(a) breach

Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rumpus window leak

Amount: $2,697.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: s45(1)(b) breach- rumpus window leak

Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- water leak

Amount: $2,697.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: s45(1)(b) breach- water leak

Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- bathtub

Amount: $1,242.86
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Water Rates Compensation Property damage Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Xie Ningsheng Xie & Qin Yang Anna Dong must pay [The tenant/s] $25,070.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 17 September 2024 and 17 January 2025.
The tenants applied for refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Breaches of s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947; and b. Failure to provide healthy homes and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement; and c. Breaches of their quiet enjoyment.
The landlord applied for water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(a),(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenants?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(a),(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to him.
Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to provide the house in a state of cleanliness
The tenants say the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 6 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 7 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 8
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 9 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 11 , not commercially clean 12 , spotless 13 or 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 8 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[25]. 9 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[26]. 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. to a hotel or motel standard 14 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15 .
The tenants say the landlord failed to provide the premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness when the tenants moved into it.
The tenants proved the carpets were dirty when they moved in and there was mould around the front door, mould in the master bedroom and in the rumpus room and dirt on the walls. In addition, the back lawns were not mown and the yard was untidy.
The tenants produced a text message from the property manager, dated 10th November 2021 that confirmed the carpets were not cleaned before the tenants moved in and in a further text message, dated 12th November 2021, the property manager stated the tenants were permitted to leave the house in a similar state of cleanliness as they received it in, meaning they would not be obliged to leave it in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The tenants did not find this acceptable and cleaned the premise themselves before they could move all their furnishings and belongings into the house. They also arranged a cleaner to do an “end of tenancy clean” inside the house when they moved out as they considered it the right thing to do and they had no confidence the landlord would honour its word and may use this as an excuse to retain their bond.
The landlord confirmed it had paid for the lawns to be mowed a day before the tenancy commenced. Then on entry inspection, it was surprised that the tenants raised their concerns with it about the state of the back lawns. The tenants proved the back lawns were between two to three feet high.
The parties confirmed the tenants arranged a quote to get the back lawns mowed and the yard tidied for $750.00. The landlord required the tenants to pay $150.00 to tidy up the backyard, as it considered the yard reasonably tidy, and it paid the remaining $550.00 as it accepted the back lawns had not been mowed for a while.
The landlord also confirmed that one month after the tenants complained about the property looking mouldy, it paid $450.00 for mould treatment on the walls and ceilings in the master bedroom and rumpus room, where the mould was most evident and growing on the wallpaper.
I find, based on the evidence produced, that the premise was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, that the landlord should have reasonably known at the time of the prior tenants exit inspection that the premise 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. required some cleaning to be considered to be in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and that the landlord committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I award the tenants compensation of $300.00 for the inconvenience of having to clean the premise themselves before they could move their belongings and furnishings into the premise.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew that it was required to provide the premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness and failed to do so when with some due diligence of the premise the day or two prior to the tenants move in date. The landlord failed to do this, relying solely on what it says it had paid a contractor to do and what the contractor had billed them for; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience of having to clean the premise themselves before they could move into the premise and their children were unable to use the back yard until they arranged a contractor to come and mow the lawns and tidy the yard; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress and inconvenience they suffered; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide premises in a reasonable stat of cleanliness.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be assessed at the end of the section of this Order that address exemplary damage awards for all of the landlord’s 45(1) of the RTA breaches, as the Tribunal may only award up to a maximum of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages for all s 45(1) breaches. The quantum of exemplary damages awarded is based on the number of breaches, the nature of the breaches and the periods of the breaches. Failure to maintain
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The tenants say the house was in a poor condition from the start of the tenancy. At some stage during the tenancy they discovered that the owners were intending on developing the site into multiple dwellings and as such were reluctant to spend money on repairs and maintenance and did what they could to avoid having to address issues the tenants raised.
The tenants say the property manager continually told them that the owners denied having any plans to develop the property, despite the tenants informing the property manager the types of contractors that had been doing work on and around the property suggested otherwise. In addition, the tenants say they raised this issue with the property manager again after a person from the Auckland Council showed them the plans for the property when he came to inspect the property for Resource Consent. When this was raised with the property manager she informed the tenants that the owners were looking into how much it would cost to develop and if it was too much they would not go ahead with the development, but the person from the Council had suggested to the tenants that the owners had invested a lot into getting the development to the resource consent stage and were intending to develop the site once consent was granted.
The tenants confirmed that not long after the first hearing of this matter, the other tenants renting the smaller premise on this property were given notice ending their tenancy because the owners were developing the site and the construction work had commenced by the time the second hearing took place. Therefore, the tenants say the landlord must have been aware that the development was going to be imminently undertaken and chose not to be honest with the tenants about this as a reason for not wanting to invest any more than absolutely necessary into repairs and maintenance of buildings that were to be demolished.
The tenants say they do not have inspection reports to prove that they repeatedly raised the ongoing repair and maintenance issues at routine property inspections as despite them consistently requesting this information, they were never supplied with these reports. The tenants produced proof of some of these requests made on 13 February 2023 and in a 14-day notice issued on 5 March 2024. The tenants say there were at least four of these reports by 5 March 2024 and that these reports should contain photographs of all the repair and maintenance issues they have raised during the tenancy, specifically the paint peeling in the bathroom, the soft kitchen floor, the damaged window lock, the lack of ongoing maintenance on the property for the duration of the tenancy.
They say that property inspections were carried out on a six-monthly basis, during their tenancy and that at each visit the third party took photographs of all the issues and made notes about these issues. All tenant requests to view these inspection reports were ignored from the third party and the property manager.
The tenants say that this process led them to believe the reports were being ignored by the property management company and/or the owners as no investigation or repairs were carried out after being raised during the inspections. The tenants say the poor condition of the house also lead them to believe that the healthy homes report they received may not be an accurate representation of the premise’s compliance with the five healthy homes standards. They say the report says the bathroom extractor fan does not vent outside, when it does and that the house meets the draught stopping standard when it is cold, and draughts come through the floorboards.
The property manager gave evidence at the hearing that she had tried to get the inspection reports from the third party that conducted these inspections and that the third party would not release these reports to her, that they were going directly to the owners.
The tenants say that when they asked the third party for a copy of the inspection reports, they were told to get these from the property manager, as they were giving these reports to her as well as the owners. The property manager denied this.
The property manager insisted that she never got a copy of these inspection reports and that if the tenants had repair and maintenance issues the third party raised these with the owners and the owners arranged contractors to fix the issues directly. On balance, I find it less likely that the owners would hire a property management company to manage the property, get a different third- party provider to carry out the routine inspections and then manage repair and maintenance issues themselves without involving their property manager. I do not find Ms Dong’s evidence on this matter compelling.
The tenants confirmed they made sure the third party had noted the bath, draughts, paint, rotten window frames and leak issues in the inspection reports. Leaking window in rumpus room
The tenants produced evidence that there was a window in the rumpus room that leaked during the first rainy day after they moved in on 12 November 2021. They say a contractor was sent out on two occasions to remedy the leak, but the remedial repairs were ineffective, and the leak continued.
The evidence produced shows the window was still leaking at the time the tenants moved out, on 13 June 2024.
The tenants confirmed on the first visit the contractor replaced the putty with silicone around the window and did not fully investigate and repair the cause of the ongoing leak. The second visit from the contractor the tenants observed that he tried to add putty around the widow without removing the silicone, as such the leak just continued.
The tenant confirmed they did not know if the leak was fixed until the next time it rained after the contractor had been.
After the next rain, the tenants made a third complaint that the window was leaking, but the landlord did not send the contractor back again after their third complaint.
The tenants proved the leak came from around two or three panes of glass in a multi pane window that pooled on the windowsill and quite quickly overflowed on to the carpet if the tenants were not home at the time and unable to put towels on the sill to catch the significant amount of water pooling on it.
The property manager stated that when the tenants issued their 14-day notice on 5 March 2024, she brought the builder around to assess the issues complained off and the tenants indicated the kitchen floor was more of a hazard and therefore a priority to be addressed. As such, the landlord left the window leak to be addressed later.
The parties confirmed that later never came and the window leak was still unresolved at the end of the tenancy.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period commencing 12 November 2021 to 13 June 2024 for the stress and inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered for the 134 weeks 6 days the tenants had to live with the stress, inconvenience and uncertainty about when the leak would start again. The tenants reasonably expected not to have to accommodate the leak and the dampness it caused in the house when they were paying in exchange for the $700.00 rent each week. $20.00 x 134=$2,680.00.$20.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $17.14. The rent rebate ordered is $2,697.14.
The quantum of compensation awarded has been set at this level in recognition of the fact the landlord did take some initial steps to address the leak, but the steps were ineffective, and the landlord failed to investigate the cause of the issue any further than getting the contractor to seal any gaps around the window panes. The landlord did not question why the contractor took no steps to test the remedies taken to ensure the leak had been successfully addressed after the two visits. The landlord took no further action to have the ongoing issue investigated more fully and resolved after it was made aware in December 2021 that the issue was still ongoing. Water leak
The tenants say there was an ongoing dispute with the water account after the water leak that was first reported in November 2022, and then again by email to the property manager on 28 August 2023, after the tenants got the water invoice bills from July 2023.
The parties confirmed a plumber was not sent out to investigate the issue until 19 December 2023, and only after the new maintenance system had been implemented, and the tenants raised a request for the leak to be investigated through that system on 14 December 2023.
The tenants say that water invoices were also sent to them so infrequently that it made it difficult for the tenants to be able to assess how bad the leak was and what increase in their water charges were being incurred.
The tenants suspected the leaks were coming from under the house, but it took over a year for the landlord to get the source of the leak identified and it was still not fully remedied when they moved out.
The water rates invoices support that there were leaks from October 2022, that showed up in the November 2022 water rates bill. These invoices also confirmed the leaks get worse and continue up to June 2024. The tenants moved out on 13 June 2024.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period 28 August 2023 to 13 June 2024 for the stress and inconvenience suffered for the 41 weeks 3 days the tenants had to live with the stress, inconvenience and uncertainty about the leak still not having been addressed successfully and the irregularity of the water rates invoices they received making it difficult for the tenants to assess whether the leak was getting worse and how much water was being lost due to the unresolved leak.
The tenants were also denied more than one water leak rebate by WaterCare as it had determined the leak was the landlord’s issue and were not prepared to provide ongoing water leak rebates when the landlord was failing to get the leak successfully resolved.
The tenants were unable to use the bathtub for their children for the duration of the tenancy.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for 134 weeks 6 days that they suffered the loss of amenity, stress, inconvenience, of not being able to use the bathtub, an amenity they had reasonably expected to be able to use when they were paying $700.00 per week rent. $20.00 x 134=$2,680.00.$20.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $17.14. The rent rebate ordered is $2,697.14. Bathtub
The tenants say the bathtub was unusable as the enamel on the bathtub was peeling off and causing small sharp piece of paint to be ever present.
The landlord confirmed it sent a contractor in December 2021 to fix the bathtub and he sprayed some paint onto the bathtub. The tenants had evidence that this paint was flaking off again within a week.
The landlord confirmed that in January 2022 it sent the contractor back and he repeated the same process he had the first time. Again, the paint was peeling off again within a week.
The contractor then left the tenants a pot of paint and told them that if the paint starts to peel again they will need to keep spraying more paint on the bathtub.
The tenants told the contractor that the bath needed replacing, but the contractor insisted the tenants keep apply as much paint as necessary. This suggestion was ineffective and untenable and the bath remained unusable.
The landlord could not explain why the bathtub was not replaced.
The tenants say that after the contractor gave them the paint to spray on themselves, they raised the issue one more time by text and then never used the bathtub. They put buckets in the shower for their children to bath in if the children did not want to shower.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for 41 weeks 3 days that they continued to suffer the stress, inconvenience, and uncertainty of the water leak coming from under the house somewhere. $30.00 x 41=$1,230.00.$30.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 3 is $12.86. The rent rebate ordered is $1,242.86. Deteriorating paint work and unsightly mould on the outside of the house
The tenants say the house was in an overall poorly maintained condition such as having paint peeling off both inside and outside of the house, but especially the entire outside of the house and in the bathroom around the skylight.
Further, the tenants say there was a high level of mould/grime on outside of house at the start of the tenancy, even though the tenants had been assured by the property manager that the house had been power washed before they moved in. The property manager sent the contractor back to do it again and the contractor informed the tenants that he couldn’t clean the house effectively due to the bad deterioration of the paint. He stated there was a high chance the house washing would strip the remaining paint further as it was already peeling and flaking. The tenants say they used soft wet wipes to clean the mould off the front door for the first week of their tenancy as it was so unsightly.
The landlord says it hired a contractor it had used for over 10 years to do a high pressure wash of the outside of the house on 10 November 2021, a day before the tenants moved in. It says this contractor also trimmed the tree at the front of the house and mowed the lawns. The landlord says it was invoiced for these services.
The tenant has proven that the house was not washed properly and the back lawns were not mown.
In addition, the tenants proved that a number of the window frames around the house had started to rot due to lack of maintenance of the paint work over a period of years. They also proved they had removed a wisteria plant from out the front of the house as it was taking off the paint at the front of the house as it and had wrapped itself around the railing, causing significant damage. The tenants say they reported this to the landlord, at the beginning of the tenancy, but addressed it themselves after it did nothing to address the issue in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord gave evidence that it required the contractor to go back within the first week of the tenancy to rewash the house property, but the contractor told the tenants he could not do a proper high pressure wash of the house as it would result in far more paint flaking off and that would expose even more of the wooden window frames and the house boards to the elements and could lead to more rot and leaks.
The tenants say they asked the landlord again in November 2022 when these paint and rot issues would be resolved, they never got a response and nothing further was done by the end of the tenancy.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for period 19 November 2021 (one week after the tenancy commenced and after two washes of the house had not removed the flaky paint, mould and had exposed more of the wooden boards and window frames to the elements) and 13 June 2024 when the tenancy ended. That is a period of 133 weeks 6 days that they suffered the stress and inconvenience of having an unsightly home with flaking paint and a mouldy exterior that was exposed to further rot and leaks when they were paying $700.00 per week rent. $10.00 x 133=$1,330.00. $10.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $8.57. The rent rebate ordered is $1,338.57. Kitchen floor
The tenants say the kitchen floor had two soft spots in it, when they moved in, that were hazardous to their health and safety. They noticed these soft spots and raised them with the property manager during the entry inspection and demonstrated on multiple occasions to her thereafter.
The tenant produced evidence that because this issue had not been investigated and remedied, until after they emailed the property manager giving her 14 days’ notice to resolve this safety issue on 5 March 2024.
The property manager confirmed she knew about the rotten floorboards as this issue had been reported by the previous tenants and she was aware the rotten floorboards had been an issue for at least two years. She says she had looked at the floor herself and decided it was soft in one corner only and was not bad enough to warrant the cost of having it investigated to see how far spread the rot may be and if it needed addressing.
The property manager also confirmed that when the tenants first raised their concerns about the rotten/soft floorboards, she did not think the issue needed to be addressed but did not communicate this to the tenants. The tenants confirmed they had demonstrated to the property manager at the entry inspection just how unsafe the soft floorboards were in the kitchen and that they considered the issue needed to be addressed promptly as it was a known hazard they did not want to live with.
The landlord confirmed that the tenants raised this issue with her a number of times during the tenancy, that the third party provider had not informed her about this issue after each routine inspection and that the tenants had raised this issue with her in late August 2023 and then had raised a maintenance order in the property management company’s new system in December 2023. At this stage se says the floor had worsened and she got a contractor to fix it on 19 December 2023.
The tenants say the fix for this consisted of cutting out parts of the floorboards and laying new boards in the spaces. The new floor covering that was placed over them was very poorly laid down and was just laid so that it butted up against the washing machine and did not go under the washing machine, so was not sealed up against the wall.
Further, the tenants say that only half of the kitchen flooring was investigated and repaired, and there were further issues with the floor that were not resolved until just prior to the end of the tenancy. They say the floor began to crack and the crack got worse. After the tenants issued the property manager with the 14 days’ notice to remedy the repair and maintenance issues on 5 March 2024, they say the floor was finally repaired in late May 2024.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 12 November 2021 to 12 May 2024, being 130 weeks 2 days, that the tenants suffered the stress, inconvenience, and uncertainty of the rotten floorboards, that the property manager confirmed she knew about before the tenancy started, and whether they, their children or their guests may fall through these rotten floorboards and harm themselves.$30.00 x 130=$3,900.00.$30.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 2 is $8.57. The rent rebate ordered is $3,908.57. Carpet
The tenants say the worn carpet had carpet nails sticking out in several places when the tenancy commenced and proved their son had a serious foot injury from one of these carpet nails.
The landlord confirmed it had changed one piece of the worn carpet that was badly frayed and then got its contractor to come back again to hammer in the nails into the flooring in December 2021 after the tenants’ son was injured.
While I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act by leaving carpet nails sticking out of the carpet from 12 November 2021 to December 2021, I am usure when this was reported to the property manager and the property manager’s evidence was that once the issue was raised it was dealt with quickly, especially after the tenants’ son hurt himself. Therefore, I do not find it justifiable to make an award of compensation for this breach. Gutters
The tenants say the gutters were blocked when the tenancy commenced as the gutter had not been cleaned before tenancy commenced, even though the property manager told them on moving in, the gutters had been inspected and cleared.
The tenants produced evidence that these gutters were blocked to the point they were overflowing every time it rained and the male tenant spent the first few weeks of the tenancy climbing up on the roof to clear the gutters out as the landlord did nothing to get these overflowing gutters addressed when they had raised this issue.
The landlord says she had accepted the contractor had done the job it contracted him to do before the tenancy started and was unaware the job had not been done properly until the tenant got up on the roof to investigate. She says the gutters are high and not visible from the ground or inside the house.
The tenants say they took photographs of the gutters that showed plants growing in them and so much debris that it could not have possibly gathered in the short time between the day the contractor was supposed to have cleaned the gutters on 10 or 11 November 2021 and the first week of the tenant’s tenancy.
The landlord denied received these photographs and the tenant did not have them as he had damaged his phone and lost a lot of the text messages he had exchanged with the property manager.
The landlord did accept the tenants had raised this issue in the first two weeks of the tenancy and had said the gutters were overflowing when it rained and had plants growing out of it but it had not sent the contractor back to investigate after the tenants raised the issue of the gutters overflowing and being blocked as it knew the tenants had cleared them themselves. It did not think it was worth contacting its contractor that had failed to do the job as he had already been paid and they could not make him refund the money or go back to redo the job.
While I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act by not having the gutters cleaned and cleared properly for two weeks after the tenants first raised this issue, the landlord had acted under a belief its contractor had done the job properly prior to the tenancy commencing and it did not have reasonable time to get the contractor back at no further cost before the tenants had undertaken the work themselves. Therefore, I do not find it justifiable to make an award of compensation for this breach. Trees
After the tenants first winter in the house in 2022, they requested that the trees in the front be pruned and trimmed back, as there had been some large branches that were at risk of falling on their car and/or the roof in high winds and they were concerned that smaller branches were falling and more may fall and harm their children. The landlord did not respond to this request.
After the January 2023 floods, the tenants say they once again asked for the trees to be trimmed as a lot of branches had come down in the wet weather event. The tenants say that the landlord again did not respond to this request.
In February 2023, there was a further extreme wet weather even in Auckland that led the tenants obtaining a quote to trim the trees and remove an invasive bush/tree. The quote was $997.50 for tree trimming/removal and removal of all the green waste, chipping the wood and disposing of all the debris.
The property manager confirmed at the hearing that she had informed the tenants the quote was too expensive, and that the property management company would send their gardener around to do the work at a lesser cost.
The tenants say that after chasing this again repeatedly for the next four months, the tenants say they gave up asking the tree trimming to be done and lived with the mess from the storms and the ongoing hazard.
At the hearing the landlord says it did not investigate the tenants concerns about the trees as it had the trees trimmed just before the tenancy started, on 10 November 2021 and that they did not require trimming again less than a year later. No invoice was produced to support this defence to the tenants claim.
Further, the tenants have proven the trees did need trimming as the branches were at risk of causing harm to the house, the tenants car or the children in extreme weather events and when Auckland had five extreme weather events in 2023, a number o these branches did come down and the landlord still did nothing to remove the debris or get the overgrown trees trimmed.
The tenancy had commenced on 12 November 2021 and by January and February 2023, the trees were still not maintained. Given the contract that was charged with trimming the trees at the start of the tenancy has been proven not to have undertaken much of the work he charged he landlord for, I find it is was more likely than not he also had failed to trim the trees at the start of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord failed to arrange its gardener to undertake this work in February 2023 as promised and the trees were all overgrown at the end of the tenancy.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for 134 weeks 6 days that they suffered the stress, inconvenience, of living with overgrown trees that were a potential safety risk for them and their children and for the inconvenience of having to deal with the debris after the 2023 severe weather events. $20.00 x 134=$2,680.00. $20.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $17.14. The rent rebate ordered is $2,697.14. Gas heater
The tenants confirmed the gas heater was not working when the tenancy commenced and despite numerous requests for it to be repaired, it was not fixed until December 2023. The tenancy commenced on 12 November 2021.
The landlord was only required to provide heating for the living room, so was not required to repair this heater. Rotten window frames
The tenants gave evidence that the window in their son’s room never opened for the duration of the tenancy, from 12 November 2021 to 13 June 2024, as the frame was so rotten that it could not be opened. The tenants say this is reported in very routine inspection report carried out during the tenancy.
The property manager claims this was never raised with her and that she did not receive the property inspection reports so she was unaware this was an issue. She stated the property owners were getting these 6 monthly inspection reports and would have seen this as a recurring issue being raised. She says the owners did not ask the property management company to remedy this issue or it would have.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate, for the period commencing 12 November 2021 to 13 June 2024, for the stress and inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered for the 134 weeks 6 days the tenants were unable to open the window in their son’s bedroom to allow adequate ventilation in the room. The tenants reasonably expected to be able to open all windows as required under the healthy homes’ ventilation standard. $10.00 x 134=$1,340.00.$10.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $8.57. The rent rebate ordered is $1,348.57. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 12 November 2021. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 90th day after the tenancy commenced, being Thursday, 10 February 2022.
The landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment report, dated 5 November 2021 This report proves the premise complied all three of the five healthy homes’ standards at the start of the tenancy, with it failing the moisture ingress and drainage standard and the draught stopping standard. The report records that the landlord needs to install a ground moisture barrier and needs to fix window gaps.
The tenants confirmed the tenancy agreement did not contain all the required healthy homes standards details within it. The healthy homes compliance statement is required to be signed, separately from the signing of the main body of the tenancy agreement. The property manager failed to do this. The tenancy agreement also fails to set out the insurance information, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability. The tenancy agreement also fails to record where the smoke alarms are located, when they were last tested and what the expiry date(s) of these devices are.
The tenants say they did not receive the healthy homes assessment report until January 2022, after requesting it on 18 November 2021 and again in December 2021 as they did not believe the rental premise met the healthy homes standards because they say: a. The house is colder than it should be if insulation was properly installed: b. The bay window at the front of the house has no insulation under the floor, as the ground is visible when you look under that portion of the house; c. There are cold drafts coming in from under the floorboards throughout the house; d. The report states that the extractor fans don’t vent to outside when the tenants have observed that they do.
When the tenants received the healthy homes assessment report, they questioned the integrity of it as: a. The heat pump was installed after the date the assessment was carried out and the report completed, but it contains a picture of the heat pump in the report provided to the tenants’ b. The report says there are no blockages or obstructions in the gutter, but the tenant have evidence they took about a year’s worth of debris out of the gutters in the first few weeks of their tenancy; c. It records there is no ground moisture barrier but has no photograph of that area to show it inspected the subfloor; d. It does not record the number of heaters nor the heating capacity of the heaters but shows a picture of a heat pump that was installed after the tenancy commenced, after the healthy homes assessment was completed; e. The healthy homes report records that bathroom 1 and 2’s fans do not vet outside when they do; f. The report says the front door has gaps but doesn’t say which door. The parties confirmed there are three external doors, facing the street, driveway and into the back garden; and g. The report is silent on whether there are any gaps in the underfloor insulation, which the tenants have proven is missing in parts of the house where the floor is able to be seen through the floorboards.
The property manager accepted the healthy homes report had some errors in it that the tenants had proven existed and stated she had not checked the healthy homes report when it came in as this is normally the assessors job to check that the premise complies with what is recorded in the report. Draught stopping standard
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires landlords make sure the property does not have unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors and doors which cause noticeable draughts. All unused open fireplaces must be closed off or their chimneys must be blocked to prevent draughts.
The tenants’ healthy homes assessment report shows the premise does not currently meet the draught stopping standard as there are gaps in the joinery around an external door in an undefined bedroom.
The landlord says this was fixed by its contractor before the tenancy started but did not produce an invoice to prove this.
The tenants say the floorboards let through draughts throughout the house but produced no proof to support this claim.
I find the issues raised by the tenants relate to failure to repair and maintain the premise rather than breaches of the healthy homes standards.
I dismiss the tenants claim for breach of the draught stopping standard and do not consider an award of compensation for a failure to repair and maintain is appropriate as there was no evidence provided that satisfies me that these issues were not brought to the landlord’s attention until the first hearing. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The healthy homes assessment report shows the premise is not adequately protected from ground moisture by a ground moisture barrier when 50% of the house has a sub floor capable of being accessed.
The landlord could not prove that the ground moisture barrier had been installed and that it met the requirements of the standard. The tenants confirmed that none had been installed during the tenancy. The landlord had the heat pump inserted into the healthy homes report when it had been installed the day before the tenancy began, 6 days after the original report had been provided to the landlord. I find that it is more likely than not that if the ground moisture barrier had been installed in this period, that to would have been included in the amended assessment report.
I am satisfied that the premise failed to meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard for this reason and that the landlord knew about the breach and intentionally made a decision not to comply with this part of the standard. Insulation standard
Ceiling and underfloor insulation has been compulsory in all rental homes since 1 July 2019. Insulation must be installed in accordance with New Zealand Standard NZS 4246:2016.
The healthy homes report states the premise has underfloor and ceiling insulation that meet this requirement.
The tenants say they could see through the floorboards in many parts of the house but could not get under those areas of the house to check for insulation. The tenants did not produce any photographs of these gaps in the flooring.
I find that the tenant has failed to prove on balance that the underfloor insulation was non existent or did not meet the required standard by 90 days after the tenancy commenced. This claim is therefore dismissed. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed one intentional breach of s45(1)(a) seven intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA and one of s45(1)(bb). These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants and their family living with the stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief for these breaches during the tenancy and I find it is more likely than not that the property owners did what they could to delay and repairs and maintenance work as they had plans to develop the site and did not want to invest in maintaining premises that would soon be demolished or renovated.
I find the landlord has committed these nine unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for any of the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity of having to live in substandard conditions with less amenities than they were paying rent to enjoy.
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 it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $5,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being 75% of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Did the landlord provide the tenant with statutorily required information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 12 November 2021, and was legally required to contain healthy homes statements on all five of the healthy homes standards, being insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and heating and it also was required to provide smoke alarm numbers, where they are located, when they were last tested and date they are due for replacement.
The tenants’ tenancy agreement recorded that there was one smoke alarm in the premise, not where it was nor, what type of alarm is was, when it had been last tested or what its expiry date was. It also did not contain any of the remaining information, except the general statement agreeing to comply with the healthy homes standards, that was not signed as it is statutorily required to be.
The landlord confirms it did not provide the healthy homes information when it first received it, as remedial work was being carried out up to the date the tenancy started and as the tenants signed the agreement in late October 2021, well before the report was done or the remedial work undertaken, it had been unable to record the required information in the agreement.
The tenants confirm they never received the healthy homes assessment report until January 2022 and they never received any further information about whether the issues highlighted in the assessment report had been addressed. Even if the landlord does not have all the require information about healthy homes compliance when the tenancy agreement is drawn up and signed by the parties, the agreement must contain all the five healthy homes statements and what the landlord does not or doesn’t know about the premise’s compliance against each of those standards at that time.
The tenancy agreement also fails to record when the smoke alarm was last tested, what type of alarm it is and when the smoke alarm’s expiry date is. The landlord says its tests the alarm annually, but accepts that this information was not recorded in the tenancy agreement and it should have been.
I find the landlord has 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 the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and the insurance information required by s13A (2) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations as well as the s13A(2) insurance information requirements and intentionally did not. The evidence the landlord intentionally omitted to ensure the tenants had this information even though it had a healthy homes assessment completed on 5 November 2021, six days before the tenancy started. It could have added this information to the tenancy agreement when the information was received and did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise not knowing if it complied with the Smoke Alarm Regulations and HHS and were unable to review the assessment report and inform the landlord what they considered was incorrect in the report and ask for it to be rechecked by another provider. The tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise did not fully comply with the healthy homes’ standards or the smoke alarm regulations, but was denied that opportunity. The tenants were also denied the information about whether the landlord had insurance to cover the tenants liability for destruction of or damage to the premises and the excess that was relevant (if any) to that liability; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenants that the rental premises meet all the healthy homes standards, the smoke alarm regulations and whether the premise was insured for damage by the tenants, for what amount and the relevant excess(s); d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the smoke alarm regulations and insurance information. Did the landlord provide the tenant with healthy homes standards information on request?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1AC) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
The tenants have proven they requested the healthy homes information on 18 November 2021 and again in December 2021 as they did not believe the rental premise met the healthy homes standards. They did not receive the healthy homes assessment report until the end of January 2022.
The tenants also confirmed they raised concerns about the lack of healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement at the start of the tenancy, but were told some remedial work was being undertaken and they would receive a copy of the report once the work had been completed. The tenants say the landlord did not inform them what that remedial work was and when it would be undertaken.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not providing the healthy hoes information on request.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the requested healthy homes information on request and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because:
The landlord should have reasonably known it had to provide this information on request and it intentionally did not. The evidence the landlord intentionally failed to provide this information even though it had a healthy homes assessment completed on 5 November 2021 and did not provide this information to the tenant until January 2022, suggests the landlord knew the premise was not fully compliant and chose not to provide a report that confirmed the areas of non- compliance;
The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that they were unable to follow the landlord up to ensure the premise complied with all the healthy homes standards within the first 90 days of their tenancy starting and were left wondering if it did comply or not as there were a number of indicators that it may not be compliant;
It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide proof to the tenant whether the rental premises met all of the healthy homes standards when this information was requested because the tenant had doubts the premise complied;
It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards information when requested by a tenant. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants say that the landlord sent contractors that arrived at the premise without notification or prior arrangement on multiple occasions through the tenancy. They say the first time this occurred was the arrival of a glazier to replace a window without proper notice just we moved in we noticed a broken window and were told this would be fixed; the contractor arrived without notice on a Sunday. This occurred on 14 November 2021. When questioned the property manager told the tenants that she had asked him to message the tenants directly and if he had not that it was not her responsibility.
The tenants say the second occurrence was when they found contractors marking the driveway for the placement of storm water drains and other services, when this had not been prearranged and was done while they were out. The partes confirmed this occurred sometime in January or February 2024.
On 5 March 2024, the tenant again found contractors drilling four three-metre- deep boring holes, for soil samples, in the garden in the front and back of the property. The contractors had arrived when the tenants were out, and they arrived home to find that the contractors had let themselves into the property without any form of notice or communication the landlord or the Council.
The tenants also proved the owners and a building contractor arrived at the house and started taking pictures from the berm after all the people just arriving and going, this felt very unsafe and an invasion of our privacy. This occurred on 23 May 2024.
I find the landlord intentionally committed at least three unlawful acts by repeatedly allowing contractors and the Council to access the property without telling the tenants they are going to be coming on to the property and when and that the owners have committed at least one breach by going to the presmie unannounced with a builder to take photographs for the renovation/development they were scoping out. These breaches negatively impacted the tenants peace and privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises.
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 it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $2,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew the tenants were uncomfortable with contractors repeatedly coming to the premises unannounced and carrying out tasks that they had not informed the tenants they were going to do or even why they were there; b. The tenants felt harassed and disrespected and that their desire for peace, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for was ignored when the landlord sent contactors without any prior notice or even a courtesy text or call; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA. accordingly. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 13 June 2024. The landlord says the tenants owe $983.12 for water rates arrears. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have refused to pay more than $100.00 towards the water rates arrears due to water leak issues that have led to much higher than usual wate consumption was wastewater charges.
The tenants produced evidence that proves the water rates costs they have incurred are for more than double the amount of water they have used in the past 6 months of 2024, after they vacated this premise. They have also produced evidence that the water leak issues are demonstrated in the increasing water rates charges in the Watercare invoices they have received dated July 2023 to July 2024.
The landlord accepted there were leaks that led to increased water rate charges and it proved the landlord had made applications for water leak rebates, one of which was approved and provided to the tenants. Watercare will not continue to give endless water rates rebates when a landlord is not addressing leaks on the landlord’s property. Watercare thus refused to give the tenants a second water leak rebate after the one they received in April 2024.
The parties agreed at the 17 January 2025 hearing, that the landlord would accept, and the tenants would pay $100.00 towards the water rates arrears and that this payment is to be given and accepted in full and final settlement of all claims by either party in relation to the tenants’ water rates arrears for this premise. I award $100.00 to the landlord by the parties consent.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has also substantially succeeded with its claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details during the hearing.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have wholly or substantially succeeded in their proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the tenants conduct.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921614 — net $25,070.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: Water rates contribution to arrears	$100.00		3. The landlord applied for water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Compensation: s45(1)(a) breach		$300.00	s45(1)(a) breach
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rumpus window leak		$2,697.14	s45(1)(b) breach- rumpus window leak
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- water leak		$2,697.14	s45(1)(b) breach- water leak
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- bathtub		$1,242.86	s45(1)(b) breach- bathtub
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- paint work		$1,338.57	s45(1)(b) breach- paint work
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- kitchen floor		$3,908.57	s45(1)(b) breach- kitchen floor
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- trees		$2,697.14	s45(1)(b) breach- trees
Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rotten window frames		$1,348.57	s45(1)(b) breach- rotten window frames
Exemplary damages: s45(1) breaches		$5,400.00	s45(1) breaches
Exemplary damages: No HHS info in TA and		$750.00	No HHS info in TA and
Exemplary damages: HHS info not provided on request		$750.00	HHS info not provided on request
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment and		$2,000.00	170. I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$100.00	$25,170.87
Net award		$25,070.87
Bond		$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$25,070.87

Claims and awards for application 4921614 — net $25,070.87 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning: Water rates contribution to arrears

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 3. The landlord applied for water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Compensation: s45(1)(a) breach

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: s45(1)(a) breach

Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- rumpus window leak

Amount: $2,697.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: s45(1)(b) breach- rumpus window leak

Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- water leak

Amount: $2,697.14
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: s45(1)(b) breach- water leak

Compensation: s45(1)(b) breach- bathtub

Amount: $1,242.86
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Water Rates Compensation Property damage Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Xie Ningsheng Xie & Qin Yang Anna Dong must pay [The tenant/s] $25,070.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 17 September 2024 and 17 January 2025.
The tenants applied for refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Breaches of s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947; and b. Failure to provide healthy homes and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement; and c. Breaches of their quiet enjoyment.
The landlord applied for water rates arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(a),(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenants?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(a),(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to him.
Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to provide the house in a state of cleanliness
The tenants say the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 6 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 7 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 8
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 9 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 11 , not commercially clean 12 , spotless 13 or 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 8 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[25]. 9 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[26]. 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. to a hotel or motel standard 14 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15 .
The tenants say the landlord failed to provide the premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness when the tenants moved into it.
The tenants proved the carpets were dirty when they moved in and there was mould around the front door, mould in the master bedroom and in the rumpus room and dirt on the walls. In addition, the back lawns were not mown and the yard was untidy.
The tenants produced a text message from the property manager, dated 10th November 2021 that confirmed the carpets were not cleaned before the tenants moved in and in a further text message, dated 12th November 2021, the property manager stated the tenants were permitted to leave the house in a similar state of cleanliness as they received it in, meaning they would not be obliged to leave it in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The tenants did not find this acceptable and cleaned the premise themselves before they could move all their furnishings and belongings into the house. They also arranged a cleaner to do an “end of tenancy clean” inside the house when they moved out as they considered it the right thing to do and they had no confidence the landlord would honour its word and may use this as an excuse to retain their bond.
The landlord confirmed it had paid for the lawns to be mowed a day before the tenancy commenced. Then on entry inspection, it was surprised that the tenants raised their concerns with it about the state of the back lawns. The tenants proved the back lawns were between two to three feet high.
The parties confirmed the tenants arranged a quote to get the back lawns mowed and the yard tidied for $750.00. The landlord required the tenants to pay $150.00 to tidy up the backyard, as it considered the yard reasonably tidy, and it paid the remaining $550.00 as it accepted the back lawns had not been mowed for a while.
The landlord also confirmed that one month after the tenants complained about the property looking mouldy, it paid $450.00 for mould treatment on the walls and ceilings in the master bedroom and rumpus room, where the mould was most evident and growing on the wallpaper.
I find, based on the evidence produced, that the premise was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, that the landlord should have reasonably known at the time of the prior tenants exit inspection that the premise 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. required some cleaning to be considered to be in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and that the landlord committed an intentional and unlawful act.
I award the tenants compensation of $300.00 for the inconvenience of having to clean the premise themselves before they could move their belongings and furnishings into the premise.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew that it was required to provide the premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness and failed to do so when with some due diligence of the premise the day or two prior to the tenants move in date. The landlord failed to do this, relying solely on what it says it had paid a contractor to do and what the contractor had billed them for; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience of having to clean the premise themselves before they could move into the premise and their children were unable to use the back yard until they arranged a contractor to come and mow the lawns and tidy the yard; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress and inconvenience they suffered; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide premises in a reasonable stat of cleanliness.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be assessed at the end of the section of this Order that address exemplary damage awards for all of the landlord’s 45(1) of the RTA breaches, as the Tribunal may only award up to a maximum of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages for all s 45(1) breaches. The quantum of exemplary damages awarded is based on the number of breaches, the nature of the breaches and the periods of the breaches. Failure to maintain
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The tenants say the house was in a poor condition from the start of the tenancy. At some stage during the tenancy they discovered that the owners were intending on developing the site into multiple dwellings and as such were reluctant to spend money on repairs and maintenance and did what they could to avoid having to address issues the tenants raised.
The tenants say the property manager continually told them that the owners denied having any plans to develop the property, despite the tenants informing the property manager the types of contractors that had been doing work on and around the property suggested otherwise. In addition, the tenants say they raised this issue with the property manager again after a person from the Auckland Council showed them the plans for the property when he came to inspect the property for Resource Consent. When this was raised with the property manager she informed the tenants that the owners were looking into how much it would cost to develop and if it was too much they would not go ahead with the development, but the person from the Council had suggested to the tenants that the owners had invested a lot into getting the development to the resource consent stage and were intending to develop the site once consent was granted.
The tenants confirmed that not long after the first hearing of this matter, the other tenants renting the smaller premise on this property were given notice ending their tenancy because the owners were developing the site and the construction work had commenced by the time the second hearing took place. Therefore, the tenants say the landlord must have been aware that the development was going to be imminently undertaken and chose not to be honest with the tenants about this as a reason for not wanting to invest any more than absolutely necessary into repairs and maintenance of buildings that were to be demolished.
The tenants say they do not have inspection reports to prove that they repeatedly raised the ongoing repair and maintenance issues at routine property inspections as despite them consistently requesting this information, they were never supplied with these reports. The tenants produced proof of some of these requests made on 13 February 2023 and in a 14-day notice issued on 5 March 2024. The tenants say there were at least four of these reports by 5 March 2024 and that these reports should contain photographs of all the repair and maintenance issues they have raised during the tenancy, specifically the paint peeling in the bathroom, the soft kitchen floor, the damaged window lock, the lack of ongoing maintenance on the property for the duration of the tenancy.
They say that property inspections were carried out on a six-monthly basis, during their tenancy and that at each visit the third party took photographs of all the issues and made notes about these issues. All tenant requests to view these inspection reports were ignored from the third party and the property manager.
The tenants say that this process led them to believe the reports were being ignored by the property management company and/or the owners as no investigation or repairs were carried out after being raised during the inspections. The tenants say the poor condition of the house also lead them to believe that the healthy homes report they received may not be an accurate representation of the premise’s compliance with the five healthy homes standards. They say the report says the bathroom extractor fan does not vent outside, when it does and that the house meets the draught stopping standard when it is cold, and draughts come through the floorboards.
The property manager gave evidence at the hearing that she had tried to get the inspection reports from the third party that conducted these inspections and that the third party would not release these reports to her, that they were going directly to the owners.
The tenants say that when they asked the third party for a copy of the inspection reports, they were told to get these from the property manager, as they were giving these reports to her as well as the owners. The property manager denied this.
The property manager insisted that she never got a copy of these inspection reports and that if the tenants had repair and maintenance issues the third party raised these with the owners and the owners arranged contractors to fix the issues directly. On balance, I find it less likely that the owners would hire a property management company to manage the property, get a different third- party provider to carry out the routine inspections and then manage repair and maintenance issues themselves without involving their property manager. I do not find Ms Dong’s evidence on this matter compelling.
The tenants confirmed they made sure the third party had noted the bath, draughts, paint, rotten window frames and leak issues in the inspection reports. Leaking window in rumpus room
The tenants produced evidence that there was a window in the rumpus room that leaked during the first rainy day after they moved in on 12 November 2021. They say a contractor was sent out on two occasions to remedy the leak, but the remedial repairs were ineffective, and the leak continued.
The evidence produced shows the window was still leaking at the time the tenants moved out, on 13 June 2024.
The tenants confirmed on the first visit the contractor replaced the putty with silicone around the window and did not fully investigate and repair the cause of the ongoing leak. The second visit from the contractor the tenants observed that he tried to add putty around the widow without removing the silicone, as such the leak just continued.
The tenant confirmed they did not know if the leak was fixed until the next time it rained after the contractor had been.
After the next rain, the tenants made a third complaint that the window was leaking, but the landlord did not send the contractor back again after their third complaint.
The tenants proved the leak came from around two or three panes of glass in a multi pane window that pooled on the windowsill and quite quickly overflowed on to the carpet if the tenants were not home at the time and unable to put towels on the sill to catch the significant amount of water pooling on it.
The property manager stated that when the tenants issued their 14-day notice on 5 March 2024, she brought the builder around to assess the issues complained off and the tenants indicated the kitchen floor was more of a hazard and therefore a priority to be addressed. As such, the landlord left the window leak to be addressed later.
The parties confirmed that later never came and the window leak was still unresolved at the end of the tenancy.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period commencing 12 November 2021 to 13 June 2024 for the stress and inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered for the 134 weeks 6 days the tenants had to live with the stress, inconvenience and uncertainty about when the leak would start again. The tenants reasonably expected not to have to accommodate the leak and the dampness it caused in the house when they were paying in exchange for the $700.00 rent each week. $20.00 x 134=$2,680.00.$20.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $17.14. The rent rebate ordered is $2,697.14.
The quantum of compensation awarded has been set at this level in recognition of the fact the landlord did take some initial steps to address the leak, but the steps were ineffective, and the landlord failed to investigate the cause of the issue any further than getting the contractor to seal any gaps around the window panes. The landlord did not question why the contractor took no steps to test the remedies taken to ensure the leak had been successfully addressed after the two visits. The landlord took no further action to have the ongoing issue investigated more fully and resolved after it was made aware in December 2021 that the issue was still ongoing. Water leak
The tenants say there was an ongoing dispute with the water account after the water leak that was first reported in November 2022, and then again by email to the property manager on 28 August 2023, after the tenants got the water invoice bills from July 2023.
The parties confirmed a plumber was not sent out to investigate the issue until 19 December 2023, and only after the new maintenance system had been implemented, and the tenants raised a request for the leak to be investigated through that system on 14 December 2023.
The tenants say that water invoices were also sent to them so infrequently that it made it difficult for the tenants to be able to assess how bad the leak was and what increase in their water charges were being incurred.
The tenants suspected the leaks were coming from under the house, but it took over a year for the landlord to get the source of the leak identified and it was still not fully remedied when they moved out.
The water rates invoices support that there were leaks from October 2022, that showed up in the November 2022 water rates bill. These invoices also confirmed the leaks get worse and continue up to June 2024. The tenants moved out on 13 June 2024.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period 28 August 2023 to 13 June 2024 for the stress and inconvenience suffered for the 41 weeks 3 days the tenants had to live with the stress, inconvenience and uncertainty about the leak still not having been addressed successfully and the irregularity of the water rates invoices they received making it difficult for the tenants to assess whether the leak was getting worse and how much water was being lost due to the unresolved leak.
The tenants were also denied more than one water leak rebate by WaterCare as it had determined the leak was the landlord’s issue and were not prepared to provide ongoing water leak rebates when the landlord was failing to get the leak successfully resolved.
The tenants were unable to use the bathtub for their children for the duration of the tenancy.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for 134 weeks 6 days that they suffered the loss of amenity, stress, inconvenience, of not being able to use the bathtub, an amenity they had reasonably expected to be able to use when they were paying $700.00 per week rent. $20.00 x 134=$2,680.00.$20.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $17.14. The rent rebate ordered is $2,697.14. Bathtub
The tenants say the bathtub was unusable as the enamel on the bathtub was peeling off and causing small sharp piece of paint to be ever present.
The landlord confirmed it sent a contractor in December 2021 to fix the bathtub and he sprayed some paint onto the bathtub. The tenants had evidence that this paint was flaking off again within a week.
The landlord confirmed that in January 2022 it sent the contractor back and he repeated the same process he had the first time. Again, the paint was peeling off again within a week.
The contractor then left the tenants a pot of paint and told them that if the paint starts to peel again they will need to keep spraying more paint on the bathtub.
The tenants told the contractor that the bath needed replacing, but the contractor insisted the tenants keep apply as much paint as necessary. This suggestion was ineffective and untenable and the bath remained unusable.
The landlord could not explain why the bathtub was not replaced.
The tenants say that after the contractor gave them the paint to spray on themselves, they raised the issue one more time by text and then never used the bathtub. They put buckets in the shower for their children to bath in if the children did not want to shower.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for 41 weeks 3 days that they continued to suffer the stress, inconvenience, and uncertainty of the water leak coming from under the house somewhere. $30.00 x 41=$1,230.00.$30.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 3 is $12.86. The rent rebate ordered is $1,242.86. Deteriorating paint work and unsightly mould on the outside of the house
The tenants say the house was in an overall poorly maintained condition such as having paint peeling off both inside and outside of the house, but especially the entire outside of the house and in the bathroom around the skylight.
Further, the tenants say there was a high level of mould/grime on outside of house at the start of the tenancy, even though the tenants had been assured by the property manager that the house had been power washed before they moved in. The property manager sent the contractor back to do it again and the contractor informed the tenants that he couldn’t clean the house effectively due to the bad deterioration of the paint. He stated there was a high chance the house washing would strip the remaining paint further as it was already peeling and flaking. The tenants say they used soft wet wipes to clean the mould off the front door for the first week of their tenancy as it was so unsightly.
The landlord says it hired a contractor it had used for over 10 years to do a high pressure wash of the outside of the house on 10 November 2021, a day before the tenants moved in. It says this contractor also trimmed the tree at the front of the house and mowed the lawns. The landlord says it was invoiced for these services.
The tenant has proven that the house was not washed properly and the back lawns were not mown.
In addition, the tenants proved that a number of the window frames around the house had started to rot due to lack of maintenance of the paint work over a period of years. They also proved they had removed a wisteria plant from out the front of the house as it was taking off the paint at the front of the house as it and had wrapped itself around the railing, causing significant damage. The tenants say they reported this to the landlord, at the beginning of the tenancy, but addressed it themselves after it did nothing to address the issue in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord gave evidence that it required the contractor to go back within the first week of the tenancy to rewash the house property, but the contractor told the tenants he could not do a proper high pressure wash of the house as it would result in far more paint flaking off and that would expose even more of the wooden window frames and the house boards to the elements and could lead to more rot and leaks.
The tenants say they asked the landlord again in November 2022 when these paint and rot issues would be resolved, they never got a response and nothing further was done by the end of the tenancy.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for period 19 November 2021 (one week after the tenancy commenced and after two washes of the house had not removed the flaky paint, mould and had exposed more of the wooden boards and window frames to the elements) and 13 June 2024 when the tenancy ended. That is a period of 133 weeks 6 days that they suffered the stress and inconvenience of having an unsightly home with flaking paint and a mouldy exterior that was exposed to further rot and leaks when they were paying $700.00 per week rent. $10.00 x 133=$1,330.00. $10.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $8.57. The rent rebate ordered is $1,338.57. Kitchen floor
The tenants say the kitchen floor had two soft spots in it, when they moved in, that were hazardous to their health and safety. They noticed these soft spots and raised them with the property manager during the entry inspection and demonstrated on multiple occasions to her thereafter.
The tenant produced evidence that because this issue had not been investigated and remedied, until after they emailed the property manager giving her 14 days’ notice to resolve this safety issue on 5 March 2024.
The property manager confirmed she knew about the rotten floorboards as this issue had been reported by the previous tenants and she was aware the rotten floorboards had been an issue for at least two years. She says she had looked at the floor herself and decided it was soft in one corner only and was not bad enough to warrant the cost of having it investigated to see how far spread the rot may be and if it needed addressing.
The property manager also confirmed that when the tenants first raised their concerns about the rotten/soft floorboards, she did not think the issue needed to be addressed but did not communicate this to the tenants. The tenants confirmed they had demonstrated to the property manager at the entry inspection just how unsafe the soft floorboards were in the kitchen and that they considered the issue needed to be addressed promptly as it was a known hazard they did not want to live with.
The landlord confirmed that the tenants raised this issue with her a number of times during the tenancy, that the third party provider had not informed her about this issue after each routine inspection and that the tenants had raised this issue with her in late August 2023 and then had raised a maintenance order in the property management company’s new system in December 2023. At this stage se says the floor had worsened and she got a contractor to fix it on 19 December 2023.
The tenants say the fix for this consisted of cutting out parts of the floorboards and laying new boards in the spaces. The new floor covering that was placed over them was very poorly laid down and was just laid so that it butted up against the washing machine and did not go under the washing machine, so was not sealed up against the wall.
Further, the tenants say that only half of the kitchen flooring was investigated and repaired, and there were further issues with the floor that were not resolved until just prior to the end of the tenancy. They say the floor began to crack and the crack got worse. After the tenants issued the property manager with the 14 days’ notice to remedy the repair and maintenance issues on 5 March 2024, they say the floor was finally repaired in late May 2024.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 12 November 2021 to 12 May 2024, being 130 weeks 2 days, that the tenants suffered the stress, inconvenience, and uncertainty of the rotten floorboards, that the property manager confirmed she knew about before the tenancy started, and whether they, their children or their guests may fall through these rotten floorboards and harm themselves.$30.00 x 130=$3,900.00.$30.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 2 is $8.57. The rent rebate ordered is $3,908.57. Carpet
The tenants say the worn carpet had carpet nails sticking out in several places when the tenancy commenced and proved their son had a serious foot injury from one of these carpet nails.
The landlord confirmed it had changed one piece of the worn carpet that was badly frayed and then got its contractor to come back again to hammer in the nails into the flooring in December 2021 after the tenants’ son was injured.
While I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act by leaving carpet nails sticking out of the carpet from 12 November 2021 to December 2021, I am usure when this was reported to the property manager and the property manager’s evidence was that once the issue was raised it was dealt with quickly, especially after the tenants’ son hurt himself. Therefore, I do not find it justifiable to make an award of compensation for this breach. Gutters
The tenants say the gutters were blocked when the tenancy commenced as the gutter had not been cleaned before tenancy commenced, even though the property manager told them on moving in, the gutters had been inspected and cleared.
The tenants produced evidence that these gutters were blocked to the point they were overflowing every time it rained and the male tenant spent the first few weeks of the tenancy climbing up on the roof to clear the gutters out as the landlord did nothing to get these overflowing gutters addressed when they had raised this issue.
The landlord says she had accepted the contractor had done the job it contracted him to do before the tenancy started and was unaware the job had not been done properly until the tenant got up on the roof to investigate. She says the gutters are high and not visible from the ground or inside the house.
The tenants say they took photographs of the gutters that showed plants growing in them and so much debris that it could not have possibly gathered in the short time between the day the contractor was supposed to have cleaned the gutters on 10 or 11 November 2021 and the first week of the tenant’s tenancy.
The landlord denied received these photographs and the tenant did not have them as he had damaged his phone and lost a lot of the text messages he had exchanged with the property manager.
The landlord did accept the tenants had raised this issue in the first two weeks of the tenancy and had said the gutters were overflowing when it rained and had plants growing out of it but it had not sent the contractor back to investigate after the tenants raised the issue of the gutters overflowing and being blocked as it knew the tenants had cleared them themselves. It did not think it was worth contacting its contractor that had failed to do the job as he had already been paid and they could not make him refund the money or go back to redo the job.
While I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act by not having the gutters cleaned and cleared properly for two weeks after the tenants first raised this issue, the landlord had acted under a belief its contractor had done the job properly prior to the tenancy commencing and it did not have reasonable time to get the contractor back at no further cost before the tenants had undertaken the work themselves. Therefore, I do not find it justifiable to make an award of compensation for this breach. Trees
After the tenants first winter in the house in 2022, they requested that the trees in the front be pruned and trimmed back, as there had been some large branches that were at risk of falling on their car and/or the roof in high winds and they were concerned that smaller branches were falling and more may fall and harm their children. The landlord did not respond to this request.
After the January 2023 floods, the tenants say they once again asked for the trees to be trimmed as a lot of branches had come down in the wet weather event. The tenants say that the landlord again did not respond to this request.
In February 2023, there was a further extreme wet weather even in Auckland that led the tenants obtaining a quote to trim the trees and remove an invasive bush/tree. The quote was $997.50 for tree trimming/removal and removal of all the green waste, chipping the wood and disposing of all the debris.
The property manager confirmed at the hearing that she had informed the tenants the quote was too expensive, and that the property management company would send their gardener around to do the work at a lesser cost.
The tenants say that after chasing this again repeatedly for the next four months, the tenants say they gave up asking the tree trimming to be done and lived with the mess from the storms and the ongoing hazard.
At the hearing the landlord says it did not investigate the tenants concerns about the trees as it had the trees trimmed just before the tenancy started, on 10 November 2021 and that they did not require trimming again less than a year later. No invoice was produced to support this defence to the tenants claim.
Further, the tenants have proven the trees did need trimming as the branches were at risk of causing harm to the house, the tenants car or the children in extreme weather events and when Auckland had five extreme weather events in 2023, a number o these branches did come down and the landlord still did nothing to remove the debris or get the overgrown trees trimmed.
The tenancy had commenced on 12 November 2021 and by January and February 2023, the trees were still not maintained. Given the contract that was charged with trimming the trees at the start of the tenancy has been proven not to have undertaken much of the work he charged he landlord for, I find it is was more likely than not he also had failed to trim the trees at the start of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord failed to arrange its gardener to undertake this work in February 2023 as promised and the trees were all overgrown at the end of the tenancy.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for 134 weeks 6 days that they suffered the stress, inconvenience, of living with overgrown trees that were a potential safety risk for them and their children and for the inconvenience of having to deal with the debris after the 2023 severe weather events. $20.00 x 134=$2,680.00. $20.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $17.14. The rent rebate ordered is $2,697.14. Gas heater
The tenants confirmed the gas heater was not working when the tenancy commenced and despite numerous requests for it to be repaired, it was not fixed until December 2023. The tenancy commenced on 12 November 2021.
The landlord was only required to provide heating for the living room, so was not required to repair this heater. Rotten window frames
The tenants gave evidence that the window in their son’s room never opened for the duration of the tenancy, from 12 November 2021 to 13 June 2024, as the frame was so rotten that it could not be opened. The tenants say this is reported in very routine inspection report carried out during the tenancy.
The property manager claims this was never raised with her and that she did not receive the property inspection reports so she was unaware this was an issue. She stated the property owners were getting these 6 monthly inspection reports and would have seen this as a recurring issue being raised. She says the owners did not ask the property management company to remedy this issue or it would have.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate, for the period commencing 12 November 2021 to 13 June 2024, for the stress and inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered for the 134 weeks 6 days the tenants were unable to open the window in their son’s bedroom to allow adequate ventilation in the room. The tenants reasonably expected to be able to open all windows as required under the healthy homes’ ventilation standard. $10.00 x 134=$1,340.00.$10.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $8.57. The rent rebate ordered is $1,348.57. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 12 November 2021. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 90th day after the tenancy commenced, being Thursday, 10 February 2022.
The landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment report, dated 5 November 2021 This report proves the premise complied all three of the five healthy homes’ standards at the start of the tenancy, with it failing the moisture ingress and drainage standard and the draught stopping standard. The report records that the landlord needs to install a ground moisture barrier and needs to fix window gaps.
The tenants confirmed the tenancy agreement did not contain all the required healthy homes standards details within it. The healthy homes compliance statement is required to be signed, separately from the signing of the main body of the tenancy agreement. The property manager failed to do this. The tenancy agreement also fails to set out the insurance information, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability. The tenancy agreement also fails to record where the smoke alarms are located, when they were last tested and what the expiry date(s) of these devices are.
The tenants say they did not receive the healthy homes assessment report until January 2022, after requesting it on 18 November 2021 and again in December 2021 as they did not believe the rental premise met the healthy homes standards because they say: a. The house is colder than it should be if insulation was properly installed: b. The bay window at the front of the house has no insulation under the floor, as the ground is visible when you look under that portion of the house; c. There are cold drafts coming in from under the floorboards throughout the house; d. The report states that the extractor fans don’t vent to outside when the tenants have observed that they do.
When the tenants received the healthy homes assessment report, they questioned the integrity of it as: a. The heat pump was installed after the date the assessment was carried out and the report completed, but it contains a picture of the heat pump in the report provided to the tenants’ b. The report says there are no blockages or obstructions in the gutter, but the tenant have evidence they took about a year’s worth of debris out of the gutters in the first few weeks of their tenancy; c. It records there is no ground moisture barrier but has no photograph of that area to show it inspected the subfloor; d. It does not record the number of heaters nor the heating capacity of the heaters but shows a picture of a heat pump that was installed after the tenancy commenced, after the healthy homes assessment was completed; e. The healthy homes report records that bathroom 1 and 2’s fans do not vet outside when they do; f. The report says the front door has gaps but doesn’t say which door. The parties confirmed there are three external doors, facing the street, driveway and into the back garden; and g. The report is silent on whether there are any gaps in the underfloor insulation, which the tenants have proven is missing in parts of the house where the floor is able to be seen through the floorboards.
The property manager accepted the healthy homes report had some errors in it that the tenants had proven existed and stated she had not checked the healthy homes report when it came in as this is normally the assessors job to check that the premise complies with what is recorded in the report. Draught stopping standard
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires landlords make sure the property does not have unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors and doors which cause noticeable draughts. All unused open fireplaces must be closed off or their chimneys must be blocked to prevent draughts.
The tenants’ healthy homes assessment report shows the premise does not currently meet the draught stopping standard as there are gaps in the joinery around an external door in an undefined bedroom.
The landlord says this was fixed by its contractor before the tenancy started but did not produce an invoice to prove this.
The tenants say the floorboards let through draughts throughout the house but produced no proof to support this claim.
I find the issues raised by the tenants relate to failure to repair and maintain the premise rather than breaches of the healthy homes standards.
I dismiss the tenants claim for breach of the draught stopping standard and do not consider an award of compensation for a failure to repair and maintain is appropriate as there was no evidence provided that satisfies me that these issues were not brought to the landlord’s attention until the first hearing. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The healthy homes assessment report shows the premise is not adequately protected from ground moisture by a ground moisture barrier when 50% of the house has a sub floor capable of being accessed.
The landlord could not prove that the ground moisture barrier had been installed and that it met the requirements of the standard. The tenants confirmed that none had been installed during the tenancy. The landlord had the heat pump inserted into the healthy homes report when it had been installed the day before the tenancy began, 6 days after the original report had been provided to the landlord. I find that it is more likely than not that if the ground moisture barrier had been installed in this period, that to would have been included in the amended assessment report.
I am satisfied that the premise failed to meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard for this reason and that the landlord knew about the breach and intentionally made a decision not to comply with this part of the standard. Insulation standard
Ceiling and underfloor insulation has been compulsory in all rental homes since 1 July 2019. Insulation must be installed in accordance with New Zealand Standard NZS 4246:2016.
The healthy homes report states the premise has underfloor and ceiling insulation that meet this requirement.
The tenants say they could see through the floorboards in many parts of the house but could not get under those areas of the house to check for insulation. The tenants did not produce any photographs of these gaps in the flooring.
I find that the tenant has failed to prove on balance that the underfloor insulation was non existent or did not meet the required standard by 90 days after the tenancy commenced. This claim is therefore dismissed. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed one intentional breach of s45(1)(a) seven intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA and one of s45(1)(bb). These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants and their family living with the stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief for these breaches during the tenancy and I find it is more likely than not that the property owners did what they could to delay and repairs and maintenance work as they had plans to develop the site and did not want to invest in maintaining premises that would soon be demolished or renovated.
I find the landlord has committed these nine unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for any of the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity of having to live in substandard conditions with less amenities than they were paying rent to enjoy.
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 it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $5,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being 75% of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Did the landlord provide the tenant with statutorily required information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 12 November 2021, and was legally required to contain healthy homes statements on all five of the healthy homes standards, being insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and heating and it also was required to provide smoke alarm numbers, where they are located, when they were last tested and date they are due for replacement.
The tenants’ tenancy agreement recorded that there was one smoke alarm in the premise, not where it was nor, what type of alarm is was, when it had been last tested or what its expiry date was. It also did not contain any of the remaining information, except the general statement agreeing to comply with the healthy homes standards, that was not signed as it is statutorily required to be.
The landlord confirms it did not provide the healthy homes information when it first received it, as remedial work was being carried out up to the date the tenancy started and as the tenants signed the agreement in late October 2021, well before the report was done or the remedial work undertaken, it had been unable to record the required information in the agreement.
The tenants confirm they never received the healthy homes assessment report until January 2022 and they never received any further information about whether the issues highlighted in the assessment report had been addressed. Even if the landlord does not have all the require information about healthy homes compliance when the tenancy agreement is drawn up and signed by the parties, the agreement must contain all the five healthy homes statements and what the landlord does not or doesn’t know about the premise’s compliance against each of those standards at that time.
The tenancy agreement also fails to record when the smoke alarm was last tested, what type of alarm it is and when the smoke alarm’s expiry date is. The landlord says its tests the alarm annually, but accepts that this information was not recorded in the tenancy agreement and it should have been.
I find the landlord has 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 the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and the insurance information required by s13A (2) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations as well as the s13A(2) insurance information requirements and intentionally did not. The evidence the landlord intentionally omitted to ensure the tenants had this information even though it had a healthy homes assessment completed on 5 November 2021, six days before the tenancy started. It could have added this information to the tenancy agreement when the information was received and did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise not knowing if it complied with the Smoke Alarm Regulations and HHS and were unable to review the assessment report and inform the landlord what they considered was incorrect in the report and ask for it to be rechecked by another provider. The tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise did not fully comply with the healthy homes’ standards or the smoke alarm regulations, but was denied that opportunity. The tenants were also denied the information about whether the landlord had insurance to cover the tenants liability for destruction of or damage to the premises and the excess that was relevant (if any) to that liability; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenants that the rental premises meet all the healthy homes standards, the smoke alarm regulations and whether the premise was insured for damage by the tenants, for what amount and the relevant excess(s); d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the smoke alarm regulations and insurance information. Did the landlord provide the tenant with healthy homes standards information on request?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1AC) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
The tenants have proven they requested the healthy homes information on 18 November 2021 and again in December 2021 as they did not believe the rental premise met the healthy homes standards. They did not receive the healthy homes assessment report until the end of January 2022.
The tenants also confirmed they raised concerns about the lack of healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement at the start of the tenancy, but were told some remedial work was being undertaken and they would receive a copy of the report once the work had been completed. The tenants say the landlord did not inform them what that remedial work was and when it would be undertaken.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not providing the healthy hoes information on request.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the requested healthy homes information on request and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because:
The landlord should have reasonably known it had to provide this information on request and it intentionally did not. The evidence the landlord intentionally failed to provide this information even though it had a healthy homes assessment completed on 5 November 2021 and did not provide this information to the tenant until January 2022, suggests the landlord knew the premise was not fully compliant and chose not to provide a report that confirmed the areas of non- compliance;
The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that they were unable to follow the landlord up to ensure the premise complied with all the healthy homes standards within the first 90 days of their tenancy starting and were left wondering if it did comply or not as there were a number of indicators that it may not be compliant;
It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide proof to the tenant whether the rental premises met all of the healthy homes standards when this information was requested because the tenant had doubts the premise complied;
It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards information when requested by a tenant. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants say that the landlord sent contractors that arrived at the premise without notification or prior arrangement on multiple occasions through the tenancy. They say the first time this occurred was the arrival of a glazier to replace a window without proper notice just we moved in we noticed a broken window and were told this would be fixed; the contractor arrived without notice on a Sunday. This occurred on 14 November 2021. When questioned the property manager told the tenants that she had asked him to message the tenants directly and if he had not that it was not her responsibility.
The tenants say the second occurrence was when they found contractors marking the driveway for the placement of storm water drains and other services, when this had not been prearranged and was done while they were out. The partes confirmed this occurred sometime in January or February 2024.
On 5 March 2024, the tenant again found contractors drilling four three-metre- deep boring holes, for soil samples, in the garden in the front and back of the property. The contractors had arrived when the tenants were out, and they arrived home to find that the contractors had let themselves into the property without any form of notice or communication the landlord or the Council.
The tenants also proved the owners and a building contractor arrived at the house and started taking pictures from the berm after all the people just arriving and going, this felt very unsafe and an invasion of our privacy. This occurred on 23 May 2024.
I find the landlord intentionally committed at least three unlawful acts by repeatedly allowing contractors and the Council to access the property without telling the tenants they are going to be coming on to the property and when and that the owners have committed at least one breach by going to the presmie unannounced with a builder to take photographs for the renovation/development they were scoping out. These breaches negatively impacted the tenants peace and privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises.
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 it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $2,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew the tenants were uncomfortable with contractors repeatedly coming to the premises unannounced and carrying out tasks that they had not informed the tenants they were going to do or even why they were there; b. The tenants felt harassed and disrespected and that their desire for peace, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for was ignored when the landlord sent contactors without any prior notice or even a courtesy text or call; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA. accordingly. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 13 June 2024. The landlord says the tenants owe $983.12 for water rates arrears. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have refused to pay more than $100.00 towards the water rates arrears due to water leak issues that have led to much higher than usual wate consumption was wastewater charges.
The tenants produced evidence that proves the water rates costs they have incurred are for more than double the amount of water they have used in the past 6 months of 2024, after they vacated this premise. They have also produced evidence that the water leak issues are demonstrated in the increasing water rates charges in the Watercare invoices they have received dated July 2023 to July 2024.
The landlord accepted there were leaks that led to increased water rate charges and it proved the landlord had made applications for water leak rebates, one of which was approved and provided to the tenants. Watercare will not continue to give endless water rates rebates when a landlord is not addressing leaks on the landlord’s property. Watercare thus refused to give the tenants a second water leak rebate after the one they received in April 2024.
The parties agreed at the 17 January 2025 hearing, that the landlord would accept, and the tenants would pay $100.00 towards the water rates arrears and that this payment is to be given and accepted in full and final settlement of all claims by either party in relation to the tenants’ water rates arrears for this premise. I award $100.00 to the landlord by the parties consent.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has also substantially succeeded with its claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details during the hearing.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have wholly or substantially succeeded in their proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the tenants conduct.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921614 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921614 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

How much is owed for water rates?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

How much is owed for water rates?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions