What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4924557 about?

The tribunal order states: Unity Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,420.44

How much money was awarded in case 4924557?

Compensation: Failure to remove asbe…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924557?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10741983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4924557 about?

The tribunal order states: Unity Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,420.44

How much money was awarded in case 4924557?

Compensation: Failure to remove asbe…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924557?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10741983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Colina Street, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4924557 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4924557 — net $2,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to repair and to ensure compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS	$1,600.00	Failure to repair and to ensure compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS
Compensation: Failure to remove asbestos roofing iron	$300.00	Failure to remove asbestos roofing iron
Exemplary damages: Failure to repair window latches	$500.00	Failure to repair window latches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,420.44

Order

Unity Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Hu represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Background
The tenancy started on 22 October 2022 and ended on 10 June 2024.
One of the tenants rented the premises with other tenants (or flatmates) between October 2021 and October 2022 before this tenancy commenced.
This application only concerns the tenancy with these named tenants, not the previous tenancy.
After the tenancy ended, the tenants made their application to the Tribunal.
The premises have since been sold.
I have amended the application to show Unity Property Management Limited as the landlord, not as agent for the landlord. That reflects the tenancy agreement which records Unity Property Management as the landlord, not as agent for the landlord. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Were the premises compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? If not should the Tribunal award exemplary damages and/or compensation? •Did the landlord fail to remove asbestos roofing material stacked outside the premises? •Did the landlord commit any statutory breach in relation to the repair of the bathroom extractor fan? If so, what is the remedy? Relevant legal considerations
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. A landlord shall (among other things) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and comply with the HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. They are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
The tenants should be aware that because exemplary damages are the civil equivalent of a fine, the Tribunal applies similar principles when determining the amount to award.
That an unlawful act might provide for a maximum amount of exemplary damages of $7,200.00 does not mean the Tribunal will (or could) award that amount. In the same way that a criminal Court might impose a fine of $1,000.00 for an offence that carries a maximum fine of $10,000.00 or 3 months’ imprisonment. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch the Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion Were the premises compliant with the HHS? If not should the Tribunal award exemplary damages and/or compensation?
The landlord produced in evidence a HHS assessment report dated 8 December 2020. That was obtained in advance of the compliance date for the HHS. The report confirmed that the premises were HHS compliant then.
The tenants’ evidence was that there was not much insulation in the ceiling and only about 50% insulation in place under the floor.
The landlord produced an invoice dated 5 September 2022 (so before this tenancy commenced) that shows the installation of insulation in the ceiling and underfloor. The invoice states 60 sq meter had not installed.
The invoice also refers to drapes being provided and installed.
The tenants claim this work was done in August 2023, but the invoice is dated 9 September 2022.
The tenants did not produce in evidence any HHS assessment report. They relied on their own observations. They allege that the HHS report was obtained under false pretences.
The evidence is not sufficient for me to find that allegation proved. However, there is a direct contradiction between the HHS report and the later work invoiced. Both were provided by the same company.
On the one hand the contractor states in the 8 December 2020 HHS report that the premises comply with all the HHS standards. Then, in the 5 September 2022 invoice the contractor says ceiling insulation was provided and installed as was underfloor insulation; 60 square meters had not been installed.
So, on the balance of probabilities the HHS report was not accurate when it was written.
This is further reinforced by the photos the tenants produced in evidence which show areas not insulated. Ms Hu suggested that the HHS assessor just took photos from the manholes, without conducting a full inspection. That is probably what happened.
To award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must find that the landlord ‘turned their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately set about to commit it’. Negligence is not sufficient.
I cannot make that finding. The landlord had the premises assessed for HHS compliance. And it later had further insulation installed. So, it did not intentionally ignore the requirement to comply with the HHS. It was entitled to reply on the report. But the report was not accurate.
Rather, what I find happened, is that the HHS assessor’s report is not reliable, due to an inadequate inspection, and the premises were not HHS compliant as to insulation for a limited time and as to the draught standard for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenants gave evidence, which I accept, that about 12 window latches were broken on 6 sets of windows which meant that the affected parts of the premises (including a bedroom) were draughty.
While the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages because the necessary element of intent was missing, it can award compensation to the tenants for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy they experienced due to draught, cold, and mould, the result of the failure to comply with the draught standard and, for a time, the insulation standard. For this breach I award the tenants compensation of $1,600.00.
While intent is not established in so far as HHS compliance is concerned, the tenants gave evidence that they mentioned the draught issue due to the broken window latches to their property manager (not Ms Hu) several times, but she took no action.
Ms Hu confirmed that the owner was reluctant to spend money on the premises as the owner had decided to sell them. Ms Hu said she relied on her staff, the property manager; she did not visit the premises. She also referred to her ‘lack of knowledge’.
The failure by the tenants’ property manager to ensure that the window latches were repaired was an intentional act. I accept the tenants’ evidence that they mentioned it to her during inspections. When Ms Hu was eventually made aware of the issue, the owner would not authorise the repairs.
The landlord’s failure to repair and the decision by the owner not to repair was intentional. It had an effect on the tenants (their enjoyment of the tenancy was diminished) and it was against their interests. It is also against the public interest for landlords to ignore their duty to repair and maintain the premises.
For this unlawful act, I award the tenant exemplary damages of $500.00. As noted earlier, exemplary damages are to punish and to deter. Did the landlord fail to remove asbestos roofing material stacked outside the premises?
The tenants produced photos of asbestos coated roofing iron (known as Super- 6) that was left at the premises for the duration of the tenancy. There were approximately 17 sheets. They said the asbestos on the iron could degrade over time, leach into the ground, and generally become a health issue. It must be removed by specialists.
Ms Hu said she thought the tenants agreed to remove the material as part of an agreement around the negotiation of a lower rent. However, any negotiations happened in relation to the previous tenancy, not this one. And a landlord cannot negotiate out of the provisions of the RTA.
The tenants have not established that they suffered any harm due to the roofing material. Nor have they established the kind of asbestos involved. But what they have established is that the landlord failed to provide the premises free of rubbish, which is a breach of a landlord’s responsibility to provide the premises (which includes the exterior) in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The presence of rubbish at the premises detracted from the tenants’ enjoyment of the tenancy. For this breach I award the tenants compensation of $300.00. Did the landlord commit any statutory breach in relation to the repair of the bathroom extractor fan? If so, what is the remedy?
The tenants gave evidence that the landlord arranged for a handyman to repair a broken bathroom extraction fan, rather than an electrician, despite them telling Ms Hu a handyman was not qualified to do such work.
Ms Hu eventually agreed to send an electrician who had to work around what the handyman had already done, work that resulted in him ‘blowing up’ the new replacement fan and blowing the fuses.
Electrical work must always be done by a qualified electrician for obvious safety reasons.
While Ms Hu was wrong to say that a handyman could do the work (something she said was due to her lack of knowledge), no harm resulted.
The electrician repaired the fan within a few hours of the tenants notifying Ms Hu that the handyman could not do the work. The tenants’ anxiety is acknowledged, especially since live wires were left dangling for a short period of time, but the Tribunal makes no award of compensation for this time-limited breach by the landlord that resolved without issue. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $2,420.44 comprising compensation of $1,900.00 in total and exemplary damages of $500.00 together with the filing fee of $20.44. Name suppression
The tenants sought, and are entitled to, name suppression as the application is successful. The landlord sought, but is not entitled to, name suppression as its defence to the application is mostly unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4924557 — net $2,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to repair and to ensure compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS	$1,600.00	Failure to repair and to ensure compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS
Compensation: Failure to remove asbestos roofing iron	$300.00	Failure to remove asbestos roofing iron
Exemplary damages: Failure to repair window latches	$500.00	Failure to repair window latches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,420.44

Order

Unity Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Hu represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Background
The tenancy started on 22 October 2022 and ended on 10 June 2024.
One of the tenants rented the premises with other tenants (or flatmates) between October 2021 and October 2022 before this tenancy commenced.
This application only concerns the tenancy with these named tenants, not the previous tenancy.
After the tenancy ended, the tenants made their application to the Tribunal.
The premises have since been sold.
I have amended the application to show Unity Property Management Limited as the landlord, not as agent for the landlord. That reflects the tenancy agreement which records Unity Property Management as the landlord, not as agent for the landlord. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Were the premises compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? If not should the Tribunal award exemplary damages and/or compensation? •Did the landlord fail to remove asbestos roofing material stacked outside the premises? •Did the landlord commit any statutory breach in relation to the repair of the bathroom extractor fan? If so, what is the remedy? Relevant legal considerations
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. A landlord shall (among other things) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and comply with the HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. They are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
The tenants should be aware that because exemplary damages are the civil equivalent of a fine, the Tribunal applies similar principles when determining the amount to award.
That an unlawful act might provide for a maximum amount of exemplary damages of $7,200.00 does not mean the Tribunal will (or could) award that amount. In the same way that a criminal Court might impose a fine of $1,000.00 for an offence that carries a maximum fine of $10,000.00 or 3 months’ imprisonment. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch the Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion Were the premises compliant with the HHS? If not should the Tribunal award exemplary damages and/or compensation?
The landlord produced in evidence a HHS assessment report dated 8 December 2020. That was obtained in advance of the compliance date for the HHS. The report confirmed that the premises were HHS compliant then.
The tenants’ evidence was that there was not much insulation in the ceiling and only about 50% insulation in place under the floor.
The landlord produced an invoice dated 5 September 2022 (so before this tenancy commenced) that shows the installation of insulation in the ceiling and underfloor. The invoice states 60 sq meter had not installed.
The invoice also refers to drapes being provided and installed.
The tenants claim this work was done in August 2023, but the invoice is dated 9 September 2022.
The tenants did not produce in evidence any HHS assessment report. They relied on their own observations. They allege that the HHS report was obtained under false pretences.
The evidence is not sufficient for me to find that allegation proved. However, there is a direct contradiction between the HHS report and the later work invoiced. Both were provided by the same company.
On the one hand the contractor states in the 8 December 2020 HHS report that the premises comply with all the HHS standards. Then, in the 5 September 2022 invoice the contractor says ceiling insulation was provided and installed as was underfloor insulation; 60 square meters had not been installed.
So, on the balance of probabilities the HHS report was not accurate when it was written.
This is further reinforced by the photos the tenants produced in evidence which show areas not insulated. Ms Hu suggested that the HHS assessor just took photos from the manholes, without conducting a full inspection. That is probably what happened.
To award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must find that the landlord ‘turned their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately set about to commit it’. Negligence is not sufficient.
I cannot make that finding. The landlord had the premises assessed for HHS compliance. And it later had further insulation installed. So, it did not intentionally ignore the requirement to comply with the HHS. It was entitled to reply on the report. But the report was not accurate.
Rather, what I find happened, is that the HHS assessor’s report is not reliable, due to an inadequate inspection, and the premises were not HHS compliant as to insulation for a limited time and as to the draught standard for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenants gave evidence, which I accept, that about 12 window latches were broken on 6 sets of windows which meant that the affected parts of the premises (including a bedroom) were draughty.
While the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages because the necessary element of intent was missing, it can award compensation to the tenants for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy they experienced due to draught, cold, and mould, the result of the failure to comply with the draught standard and, for a time, the insulation standard. For this breach I award the tenants compensation of $1,600.00.
While intent is not established in so far as HHS compliance is concerned, the tenants gave evidence that they mentioned the draught issue due to the broken window latches to their property manager (not Ms Hu) several times, but she took no action.
Ms Hu confirmed that the owner was reluctant to spend money on the premises as the owner had decided to sell them. Ms Hu said she relied on her staff, the property manager; she did not visit the premises. She also referred to her ‘lack of knowledge’.
The failure by the tenants’ property manager to ensure that the window latches were repaired was an intentional act. I accept the tenants’ evidence that they mentioned it to her during inspections. When Ms Hu was eventually made aware of the issue, the owner would not authorise the repairs.
The landlord’s failure to repair and the decision by the owner not to repair was intentional. It had an effect on the tenants (their enjoyment of the tenancy was diminished) and it was against their interests. It is also against the public interest for landlords to ignore their duty to repair and maintain the premises.
For this unlawful act, I award the tenant exemplary damages of $500.00. As noted earlier, exemplary damages are to punish and to deter. Did the landlord fail to remove asbestos roofing material stacked outside the premises?
The tenants produced photos of asbestos coated roofing iron (known as Super- 6) that was left at the premises for the duration of the tenancy. There were approximately 17 sheets. They said the asbestos on the iron could degrade over time, leach into the ground, and generally become a health issue. It must be removed by specialists.
Ms Hu said she thought the tenants agreed to remove the material as part of an agreement around the negotiation of a lower rent. However, any negotiations happened in relation to the previous tenancy, not this one. And a landlord cannot negotiate out of the provisions of the RTA.
The tenants have not established that they suffered any harm due to the roofing material. Nor have they established the kind of asbestos involved. But what they have established is that the landlord failed to provide the premises free of rubbish, which is a breach of a landlord’s responsibility to provide the premises (which includes the exterior) in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The presence of rubbish at the premises detracted from the tenants’ enjoyment of the tenancy. For this breach I award the tenants compensation of $300.00. Did the landlord commit any statutory breach in relation to the repair of the bathroom extractor fan? If so, what is the remedy?
The tenants gave evidence that the landlord arranged for a handyman to repair a broken bathroom extraction fan, rather than an electrician, despite them telling Ms Hu a handyman was not qualified to do such work.
Ms Hu eventually agreed to send an electrician who had to work around what the handyman had already done, work that resulted in him ‘blowing up’ the new replacement fan and blowing the fuses.
Electrical work must always be done by a qualified electrician for obvious safety reasons.
While Ms Hu was wrong to say that a handyman could do the work (something she said was due to her lack of knowledge), no harm resulted.
The electrician repaired the fan within a few hours of the tenants notifying Ms Hu that the handyman could not do the work. The tenants’ anxiety is acknowledged, especially since live wires were left dangling for a short period of time, but the Tribunal makes no award of compensation for this time-limited breach by the landlord that resolved without issue. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $2,420.44 comprising compensation of $1,900.00 in total and exemplary damages of $500.00 together with the filing fee of $20.44. Name suppression
The tenants sought, and are entitled to, name suppression as the application is successful. The landlord sought, but is not entitled to, name suppression as its defence to the application is mostly unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924557 — Healthy homes at 9 Colina Street, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924557 — Healthy homes at 9 Colina Street, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions