What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4923275 about?

The tribunal order states: Ray Simpson Real Estate Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,047.00

How much money was awarded in case 4923275?

Compensation: bathroom window - 36 x…: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Leak – 25 X A Day: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923275?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Leaks, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10708854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4923275 about?

The tribunal order states: Ray Simpson Real Estate Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,047.00

How much money was awarded in case 4923275?

Compensation: bathroom window - 36 x…: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Leak – 25 X A Day: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923275?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Leaks, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10708854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

76A Queens Drive, Lyall Bay, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4923275 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4923275 — net $2,047.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: leak – 25 x a day	$350.00	leak – 25 x a day
Compensation: bathroom window - 36 x a week	$720.00	bathroom window - 36 x a week
Exemplary damages: HHS breach draught stopping and	$150.00	HHS breach draught stopping and
smoke alarm breach	$800.00	smoke alarm breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,047.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,047.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4923275 — net $2,047.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: leak – 25 x a day	$350.00	leak – 25 x a day
Compensation: bathroom window - 36 x a week	$720.00	bathroom window - 36 x a week
Exemplary damages: HHS breach draught stopping and	$150.00	HHS breach draught stopping and
smoke alarm breach	$800.00	smoke alarm breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,047.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,047.00

Order

Ray Simpson Real Estate Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,047.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
BY CONSENT - The landlord must arrange for a qualified plumber to inspect the pressure of the hot water to the kitchen sink to decide if there is an issue with the pressure and to establish if the hot water pressure can be improved. This work must be arranged by 16 August 2024 and completed by 23 August 2024. The plumber’s report must be shared with the tenants.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants moved into this house in November 2023. They have notified the landlord about maintenance, and they do not believe this has been attended to in a timely manner. Two of the maintenance requests were for a replacement smoke alarm and draught stopping. The tenants are also concerned that a leak was not managed properly by the landlord, resulting in a breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages. The questions I have to decide are: • Should I make a work order for the hot water? • Should I order compensation for the leak? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the leak? • Should I order compensation for the bathroom window? • Should I order exemplary damages for the smoke alarm and the draught stopping?

Should I make a work order for the hot water?

The tenants described how the hot water tap at the kitchen sink has such low pressure that they do not bother to fill the sink because it would take too long. Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
A work order is made by consent. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) RTA.

Should I order compensation for the leak?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the RTA which require landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This includes an obligation to complete work within a reasonable timeframe. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants notified the landlord about a bulge in one of the walls on 18 May. The plumber went immediately. Over the next few days GIB was removed from the main bedroom and the plumber was able to identify that worn washers in the piping for the dishwasher were the cause of the leak. A repair was made, and dehumidifiers installed to dry the beams and other areas affected by the leak. Once dry the GIB was replaced, plastered, and painted. The repair took 25 days from start to finish. I find this was a reasonable time frame for the repairs to be completed.
I do not find there was a lack of consideration for the tenants’ health and safety. The builder told them not to sleep in their bedroom once the GIB was removed. The letter from the builder provided to the Tribunal today stated - “at no time did we advise of any toxicity issues as there were none”. This is the tenants’ claim to prove and they do not have the better evidence here.
The tenants have applied for compensation. This seems reasonable to me given the disruption to them from the time they notified the landlord. There was also a loss of amenity because they lost the use of the main bedroom for much of that time. I find compensation in the amount of $98 a week to be a fair amount. This is the weekly rent divided by the six rooms in the house - the two bedrooms plus kitchen plus lounge plus bathroom plus garage. The compensation includes the inconvenience of cleaning the room after the GIB was plastered and painted. I also allow $50 reimbursement for the additional power used.

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the leak?

The tenants have also applied for exemplary damages because of how they were treated during the leak. I do not consider there was a breach of the obligation to repair so I cannot order exemplary damages for this.
The tenants submitted evidence showing that the landlord often arranged tradespeople to come to the house during the 25-day repair period with less than 24 hours notice. I established that the landlord and tradespeople entered with consent. This means there was no breach of section 48 RTA and I cannot order exemplary damages.
The tenants claim there was a breach of quiet enjoyment as a result of the landlord’s attitude during the repair period. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 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. See section 38(2) and (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 submitted that there was a breach of quiet enjoyment during the repair because: • Of poor communication about the repair timetable • Lack of consideration of personal circumstances • The landlord took no steps to minimise disruption for the tenants • The landlord took no steps to minimise stress for the tenants • The tenants had to move their personal belongings and bed out of the way of repairs many times, often at short notice.
I have read the supporting documentation provided by the tenants. A lot of the communication was at short notice, but this has to be expected when arranging different tradespeople to carry out a significant repair. Any lack of consideration and disruption has been adequately compensated for in the $98 a week. I do not find there was also a breach of quiet enjoyment, so there can be no award of exemplary damages.

Should I order compensation for the bathroom window?

It is agreed evidence that the bathroom window would not close properly and the tenants notified the landlord about this on 29 November 2023, just after they moved in. The tenants said there was a draught into the bathroom and sometimes into the bedroom. The landlord arranged for a temporary fix in June. A new window was built and this was fitted in August 2024, meaning there were around 36 weeks where the landlord breached the obligation to repair the window. I find there was a breach of section 45 RTA because of the landlord’s delay.
I accept the tenants’ submission that the draught was persistent and made using the bathroom unpleasant. I find there was a loss of amenity. I allow $20 a week as compensation for the loss of amenity, which seems a fair amount to me because the bathroom was otherwise fully functional. I also allow compensation for additional power use in the amount of $25 a month for the colder months of April – July.
I do not find the breach to be significant enough to order exemplary damages for a breach of maintenance. Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the smoke alarm and the draught stopping?
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA requires that landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms made under section 138A. The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, which require landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed and operational. Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenants noticed a smoke alarm needed to be replaced. They notified the landlord on 5 December 2023 using a phone app that they were told to use. The landlord eventually replaced the alarm in April, after an inspection. The landlord said she did not see the notification sent via the app and that was her mistake. I find this was a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide working smoke alarms. This was an unlawful act.
The tenants also claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenancy premises must be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 18 March 2024 – 120 days after the start of a new tenancy in November 2023.. The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard because of the bathroom window. I find there were around four months where the bathroom window did not comply with the HHS, and this was a breach of the RTA. This was also an unlawful act.
One order of exemplary damages can be made for breaches of section 45 RTA. 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally when they decided to wait until May 2024 before asking their builder to assess the window. They also acted intentionally by not checking the phone app and seeing the request for the smoke alarm. The effect for the tenants was a loss of trust that the landlord would action maintenance requests, frustration because they had to notify the landlord so many times, and an application to the Tribunal. It is in tenants interests that houses are safe and warm and there is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they breach the HHS and the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $800. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord. I also note that the house had other compliant smoke alarms on that level. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. I have not used my discretion to allow suppression for the landlord because there is public interest when landlords are ordered to pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923275 — Smoke alarms at 76A Queens Drive, Lyall Bay, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923275 — Smoke alarms at 76A Queens Drive, Lyall Bay, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I make a work order for the hot water?

Should I order compensation for the leak?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the leak?

Should I order compensation for the bathroom window?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I make a work order for the hot water?

Should I order compensation for the leak?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the leak?

Should I order compensation for the bathroom window?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions