How much money was awarded in case 4933186?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933186?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933186?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11473195-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4933186?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933186?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933186?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11473195-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

38 Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933186 — State of repair

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933186 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933186 — net $4,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: s45 (1) (a) & (b	$3,600.00	s45 (1) (a) & (b
Exemplary damages: s19 (1) (b	$500.00	s19 (1) (b
Net award	$4,127.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,127.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.

Dennis Chan is to pay Ashleigh Caen Aalon Porter and Brian Craig Garcia the sum of $4127.00 immediately for reimbursement of the filing fee and exemplary damages, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Exemplary damages: s45 (1) (a) & (b) $3,600.00 Exemplary damages: s19 (1) (b) $500.00 Total award $4,127.00 Bond – to be refunded to Ashleigh Porter $1,790.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenants $4,127.00

The bond centre is to refund the bond to Ashleigh Caen Aalon Porter immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:

One of the tenants, Ashleigh, answered an advertisement in April 2024 to rent the property that is the subject of this application. The rental process was being handled by a property manager rather than the landlord/owner noted as the landlord in the application.

Ashleigh went to view the property in the first week of April 2024 with other prospective tenants. At the time of the initial viewing the previous tenants were still at the property.

Ashleigh said that she felt uncomfortable being in the property when the previous tenants and all their possessions were still in the house. The curtains were all drawn and there was minimal opportunity to look closely at the condition of the property.

Ashleigh was sent a Tenancy Agreement by the property manager on 8 April 2024. Attached to the Tenancy Agreement was the requirement to pay the bond and two weeks rent in advance “on return of the Tenancy Agreement.”

On 9 th April, the landlord signed the Tenancy Agreement once returned by both the tenants.

Ashleigh needed to obtain a loan from WINZ to cover her share of the rent in advance and the bond. The bond and rent were paid to the landlord on 12 April 2024. The landlord confirmed in an email dated 13 April 2024, that he had received the rent and bond.

The tenancy agreement provided to the tenants had a commencement date of 15 April 2024.

The landlord contacted the tenants about having another viewing before they moved into the property. On 13 th April, the parties went through the property together. The landlord asked the tenants to make a list of any issue they had with the property and that he would attend to it.

The tenants said they took photos of maintenance issues with the property and discussed further cleaning of the property with the landlord.

The tenants moved into the property on 15 th April 2024.

Subsequently the landlord provided a carpet cleaner and cleaning products to the tenants for additional cleaning. The landlord also paid the tenants for their time cleaning the property.

The tenants complained of many maintenance issues with the property and a lack of response from the landlord.

The landlord told the tenants they could leave the property and terminate the 6- month fixed term tenancy is they were not happy.

On the 29 April, the tenants left the property. One week later the landlord rented the property out to new tenants.

This application claims that the property was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness, nor maintained to a reasonable state of repair. Furthermore, that the bond was not lodged within the time required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and that the Tenancy Agreement lacked completed Healthy Homes Statements.

The landlord had expressed the view that he could not file a counter claim for breach of a fixed term tenancy because he had an agreement with the tenants not to pursue complaints in the Tenancy Tribunal. Furthermore, the landlord had been the one to express to the tenants that they could leave if they were not happy.

At the time the tenants were viewing and pursuing a tenancy with the landlord, Ashleigh was 7 months pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy and a young toddler.

Brian has shared custody of his child. There was a sense of urgency obtaining a suitable home for the tenants given Ashleigh’s impending birth, high risk pregnancy requiring bed rest and that their young children would be living at the property.

To date Ashleigh has not received her share of the bond back from the Bond Centre. The landlord refunded Brian’s bond to him at the end of the tenancy on 29 April 2024. Breach s45 RTA:

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must: provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. S45 RTA - Reasonably clean and tidy:

The tenants say that the property was not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. They have provided the Tribunal with a number of photos and videos of the property.

The photos are close up of specific areas in the property. However, they clearly show dirty cupboard tops, a filthy rangehood, unvacuumed carpets, excessive build-up of calcium and lime on the shower doors, blocked shower traps full of hair, dirty stained toilet seats, rubbish left inside the house and outside. There were broken discarded house blinds left outside the carport, two supermarket shopping trolley, an old staircase, disregarded gardening and pruning left in piles on the grass.

There was heavy mould on the showers, window, and door frames.

The landlord did not concede in the hearing that the property needed further cleaning. However, the landlord accepted immediately on the 13 th of April that the tenants should be reimbursed for additional cleaning to the property. The landlord gave the tenants a carpet shampoo machine and cleaning products.

I find that the property was not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s actions to provide cleaning equipment, products and paying the tenants for cleaning, suggest to me that he accepted the property was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. 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) RTA.

I will consider the party’s intent, and interests of public and other parties at the conclusion of this section of the Order relating to breaches of s45 RTA. S 45 RTA - Failure to maintain:

The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the property in specific areas, such as: -holes in ranch slider frame, first bedroom wardrobe, hole in laundry door, in second bedroom wall, - gaps all around the laundry door, -windows in the lounge and bedroom unable to open and some unable to close, -cracked, blocked, and rusted guttering leading to overflowing when raining, -unsafe and broken driveway gate latch, -rotten and mouldy windowsills, and door frames, -broken curtain pully, - broken support beam on the carport deck, -ensuite shower door broken away from wall and door fell off, -mildewed and worn shower door wheels, dirty and mouldy shower frames. -discoloured and rotten rubber sealant around showers and kitchen sink, -Broken toilets roll holder. Draught stopping:

[The tenant/s] claims 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 tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping 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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The tenants say there were noticeable gaps all the way around the laundry door and a hole in the laundry door leading to the outside of the house. The tenants say there was a draught coming through the house as a result of the gaps and hole.

The Tribunal has been provided with photos and videos of the laundry gaps and hole. The windows that do not close causes further draught.

The landlord denies knowledge of the window draught however I was provided with a copy of a Healthy Homes Standards Report dated 28 May 2021, which refers to poorly fitted windows, broken and loose hinges and catches that prevent the window closing tightly. Furthermore, gaps at the junction of the wall and floor around skirting boards and poorly fitting doors. The property failed the draught compliance component because of the windows and external doors. The report provides photos of the issues, and they seem to be the same windows and doors complained of by the tenants.

The landlord says he fixed the windows and doors but was not able to provide proof of the repairs.

In the Healthy Homes Assessment of 28 May 2021, the ceiling insulation, heating, guttering, and windows failed. Other failing to maintain issues:

The tenants have provided videos and photographs of other maintenance issues, such as ensuite shower door that was broken and had pulled away from the wall, broken curtain pully, and broken toilet roll holder. The tenant’s say the guttering was blocked and rusty and window frames mouldy and rotten.

The tenant showed photos of the broken gate latch which was a concern as there were young preschool children residing at the house and the property was not secure for them outside.

The tenants say the deck was unsafe, there was a “wire” sticking out of the wall,

While I may not find all these areas of concern, but I do accept the gate, ensuite, curtain pully and toilet roll holder were broken and in need of repair.

The tenants gave the landlord a detailed list of maintenance issues before the start of the tenancy and issued a 14 day notice to remedy.

The landlord has failed to maintain the property and I find they have committed an unlawful act.

In response the landlord states that he did not know of some issues and did not have enough time to remedy the concerns before the tenancy terminated.

The landlord refers to a compliance officer from the Auckland City Council investigating complaints from the tenants. He says the Compliance officer did not find anything of concern.

Finally, the landlord says even if there was a failure to maintain, it was not intentional on his behalf. The landlord advised that after the tenancy ended, he carried out work of the guttering, fixed the door locks and windows, replaced the frames around the ranch slider and removed the old shopping trolleys.

I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that the landlord has failed to maintain the property at the time of the commencement of the tenancy relating to cleanliness and repairs.

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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

One of the primary responsibilities of a landlord is to provide a safe and comfortable living environment for tenants. The RTA states that landlords must provide and maintain rental properties in a reasonable state of repair. This obligation must meet all legal building, health, and safety requirements. This means keeping the plumbing, electrical wiring, and structure of the house safe and in working order. This includes locks and fastenings too.

I am ordering exemplary damages of $3600.00 for the landlord breaches of the RTA relating to failure to maintain and cleanliness. Failure to provide full healthy Homes Statement at start of tenancy:

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, 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 claim that the landlord had failed to provide a full Healthy Homes Statement with the Tenancy Agreement. I accept that there was one area not “ticked” in the statement, but I consider it to be an oversight rather than a deliberate action. Plus, the tenants did not request the information from the landlord. I do not find the landlord has committed an unlawful act relating the failure to provide a full Healthy Homes Statement. Failure to lodge the Bond:

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord accepts that he did not lodge the tenant’s bond at the bond centre in the time frame required. However, the landlord said the tenancy came to an end in 16 days, so he still had time to lodge the bond.

The landlord gave half of the bond money back to one of the tenants at the end of the tenancy but held on to Ms Porter half of the bond. The landlord said he did not know if the bond should be paid back to Ms Porter or WINZ.

Despite having half of the bond money at the end of the tenancy, the landlord still did not lodge this with the bond centre.

The Landlord had the benefit of the bond money rather than lodging it at the bond centre. Eventually Ms Porter bond was lodged with the bond centre approximately 4 months later and has remained there ever since.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Tenants should be reassured that their money is lodged at the bond centre. Claiming ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The landlord paid back one half of the bond after the end of the tenancy but has not given Ms Porter her money.

Ms Porter had to obtain a loan from WINZ for the bond. She has had to repay that debt to WINZ without having the benefit of her money or the tenancy.

I find that the landlord acted intentional when he failed to lodge the bond initially, and then months later lodged Ms Porter’s bond.

I am awarding the tenants $500 in exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach of his obligation for lodge the bond. Bond/suppression and filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to refund the sum of $1790.00 held at the centre directly to Ashleigh Caen Aalon Porter immediately. This represents half the bond paid by the tenants at the start of the tenancy. Brian Craig Garcia has received his half share of the bond directly from the landlord prior to this hearing. The remaining bond at the bond centre belongs solely to Ashleigh Porter.

Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenants have applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. As the tenants have been successful with their application, I am granting their suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933186 — net $4,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: s45 (1) (a) & (b	$3,600.00	s45 (1) (a) & (b
Exemplary damages: s19 (1) (b	$500.00	s19 (1) (b
Net award	$4,127.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,127.00