What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933323 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 4933323?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933323?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10804770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933323 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 4933323?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933323?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10804770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Vennell Street, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933323 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933323 — net $2,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: breach duty - maintenance and draught stopping	$2,400.00	breach duty - maintenance and draught stopping
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,427.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Poua Ki Raro Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,427.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The claims for compensation and breach of quiet enjoyment are dismissed.
BY CONSENT - The landlord must arrange and pay for a building inspection by a qualified person to assess whether the house is habitable. The inspection must be completed by Wednesday 21 August 2024 and the report must be written and provided to the landlord by Thursday 22 August 2024.
The landlord must email a copy of the house inspection report to the Tribunal using wgtntt@justice.govt.nz and to the tenant as soon as it is received.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant moved into the tenancy premises in September 2023 and she has had problems with the house since she moved in. She arranged a Well Homes/Sustainability Trust assessment and the assessor wrote a letter on 30 April 2024 reporting that the house is draughty and cold. On 29 June she gave that landlord a 14 day notice for repairs and draught stopping and nothing was done. The house now has cracks on the lounge ceiling and on one of the kitchen walls and the tenant is concerned the house is now on a lean. The tenant filed an application and has asked for work orders, compensation and exemplary damages. The questions I have to decide are: • Should I make work orders? • Does the house comply with the healthy homes standards? • Is maintenance required? • Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and compensation? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should I make work orders?

Landlords have an obligation under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds a landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
Before I make work orders I need to know that the house is safe to live in. I have ordered the landlord to arrange and provide an urgent report from a qualified person who must assess the house and decide if it is habitable. A copy of the report must be provided to the Tribunal and the tenant by Thursday next week. If the house is habitable then I can make work orders. If the house is not habitable then section 59 RTA allows either party to give notice to end the tenancy.
I note that the landlord has offered other houses to the tenant. If the parties agree on a house then the tenant should let me know, because work orders will be redundant if the tenancy is ending.

Does the house comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). She considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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 tenant is concerned that there is smelly water coming out from under the deck after they have a shower or use the washing machine. I have seen photos showing the pooling water. The grey water also runs into the neighbouring property.
I have considered the photos and the evidence. It seems most likely to me that there is a plumbing issue that needs attention, but I am not persuaded the issue is with the drainage of storm water, surface water or ground water. This means the tenant has not proved there was a breach of the drainage standard.
The tenant also claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, and which allow draughts to arise.
The tenancy agreement has an HHS statement that the house is free from draughts. The tenant has the Well Homes assessment which states that draught stopping is required on almost all the windows, including windows in the bedrooms and the bathroom. The back door has unreasonable gaps around it. The access to the subfloor is letting a lot of cold air and contributing to “significant heat loss”. The landlord was given a copy of this report. Support workers for the landlord have confirmed the draughts. No draught stopping has been done.
I find the tenant has proved the house needs draught stopping. Failing to bring the house back to standard is a breach by the landlord. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Is maintenance required?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant said she raised her many concerns with the landlord verbally at inspections, verbally with support workers, and by serving a 14 day notice on 29 June requiring the landlord to fix all the window frames, address the mould, and check the wiring. She has provided me with photos and gave credible evidence at the hearing.
It seems most likely to me the landlord was notified about the grey water, the draughts, and the wiring at the inspections. This is because the tenant was the only one at the hearing who was also present at the inspections. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the 14 day notice was overlooked and not actioned. The only responses from the landlord since the tenant moved in are a mould assessment done on 9 August, and a plumber booked to go to the house next week.
I find the landlord breached its responsibilities to carry out repairs. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and compensation?

The tenant has claimed exemplary damages. Where a landlord 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. The maximum amount that can be ordered for this HHS breach and the breach of the duty to repair is $7,200. See section 45(1A), 109(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord said its intention is to provide warm, dry houses and to do right by its tenants. It said it has been hindered by the owner of the property which has responded slowly to requests for help. I am not persuaded by this because the landlord named on the tenancy agreement is responsible under the RTA. Also, it was the landlord who overlooked the 14 day notice. I find the decision not to repair and draught stop sooner was intentional.
The tenant said she has been an “emotional mess”. She and her children have been sick for a lot of the tenancy. She is finding heating expensive because of the draughts. She has found dealing with the landlord very frustrating.
It is in tenants interests that landlords provide houses free from draughts and take tenants seriously when they ask for repairs. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when there are breaches of the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2,400. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.
The tenant also claimed $1,500 for electronics that have been ruined by erratic wiring in the house. I can only order compensation if I am satisfied there has been a loss. The tenant has not provided me with any evidence about the wiring. I do not have any receipts showing the purchase prices. I do not have any quotes for the replacement items. The tenant has not proved a loss and so this claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant said in her application that she has been ignored by the landlord and very stressed as a result. This raises the question as to whether there has been a breach of quiet enjoyment because 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) RTA.
While I accept that the tenant’s experience living in the house has affected her enjoyment of the tenancy, I consider her experience to be the result of the draughts and missing repairs. I do not find there has also been a breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant has not proved this claim and it is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in social housing and when landlords are ordered to pay exemplary damages. See 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933323 — net $2,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: breach duty - maintenance and draught stopping	$2,400.00	breach duty - maintenance and draught stopping
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,427.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Poua Ki Raro Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,427.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The claims for compensation and breach of quiet enjoyment are dismissed.
BY CONSENT - The landlord must arrange and pay for a building inspection by a qualified person to assess whether the house is habitable. The inspection must be completed by Wednesday 21 August 2024 and the report must be written and provided to the landlord by Thursday 22 August 2024.
The landlord must email a copy of the house inspection report to the Tribunal using wgtntt@justice.govt.nz and to the tenant as soon as it is received.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant moved into the tenancy premises in September 2023 and she has had problems with the house since she moved in. She arranged a Well Homes/Sustainability Trust assessment and the assessor wrote a letter on 30 April 2024 reporting that the house is draughty and cold. On 29 June she gave that landlord a 14 day notice for repairs and draught stopping and nothing was done. The house now has cracks on the lounge ceiling and on one of the kitchen walls and the tenant is concerned the house is now on a lean. The tenant filed an application and has asked for work orders, compensation and exemplary damages. The questions I have to decide are: • Should I make work orders? • Does the house comply with the healthy homes standards? • Is maintenance required? • Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and compensation? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should I make work orders?

Landlords have an obligation under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds a landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
Before I make work orders I need to know that the house is safe to live in. I have ordered the landlord to arrange and provide an urgent report from a qualified person who must assess the house and decide if it is habitable. A copy of the report must be provided to the Tribunal and the tenant by Thursday next week. If the house is habitable then I can make work orders. If the house is not habitable then section 59 RTA allows either party to give notice to end the tenancy.
I note that the landlord has offered other houses to the tenant. If the parties agree on a house then the tenant should let me know, because work orders will be redundant if the tenancy is ending.

Does the house comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). She considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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 tenant is concerned that there is smelly water coming out from under the deck after they have a shower or use the washing machine. I have seen photos showing the pooling water. The grey water also runs into the neighbouring property.
I have considered the photos and the evidence. It seems most likely to me that there is a plumbing issue that needs attention, but I am not persuaded the issue is with the drainage of storm water, surface water or ground water. This means the tenant has not proved there was a breach of the drainage standard.
The tenant also claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, and which allow draughts to arise.
The tenancy agreement has an HHS statement that the house is free from draughts. The tenant has the Well Homes assessment which states that draught stopping is required on almost all the windows, including windows in the bedrooms and the bathroom. The back door has unreasonable gaps around it. The access to the subfloor is letting a lot of cold air and contributing to “significant heat loss”. The landlord was given a copy of this report. Support workers for the landlord have confirmed the draughts. No draught stopping has been done.
I find the tenant has proved the house needs draught stopping. Failing to bring the house back to standard is a breach by the landlord. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Is maintenance required?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant said she raised her many concerns with the landlord verbally at inspections, verbally with support workers, and by serving a 14 day notice on 29 June requiring the landlord to fix all the window frames, address the mould, and check the wiring. She has provided me with photos and gave credible evidence at the hearing.
It seems most likely to me the landlord was notified about the grey water, the draughts, and the wiring at the inspections. This is because the tenant was the only one at the hearing who was also present at the inspections. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the 14 day notice was overlooked and not actioned. The only responses from the landlord since the tenant moved in are a mould assessment done on 9 August, and a plumber booked to go to the house next week.
I find the landlord breached its responsibilities to carry out repairs. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and compensation?

The tenant has claimed exemplary damages. Where a landlord 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. The maximum amount that can be ordered for this HHS breach and the breach of the duty to repair is $7,200. See section 45(1A), 109(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord said its intention is to provide warm, dry houses and to do right by its tenants. It said it has been hindered by the owner of the property which has responded slowly to requests for help. I am not persuaded by this because the landlord named on the tenancy agreement is responsible under the RTA. Also, it was the landlord who overlooked the 14 day notice. I find the decision not to repair and draught stop sooner was intentional.
The tenant said she has been an “emotional mess”. She and her children have been sick for a lot of the tenancy. She is finding heating expensive because of the draughts. She has found dealing with the landlord very frustrating.
It is in tenants interests that landlords provide houses free from draughts and take tenants seriously when they ask for repairs. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when there are breaches of the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2,400. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.
The tenant also claimed $1,500 for electronics that have been ruined by erratic wiring in the house. I can only order compensation if I am satisfied there has been a loss. The tenant has not provided me with any evidence about the wiring. I do not have any receipts showing the purchase prices. I do not have any quotes for the replacement items. The tenant has not proved a loss and so this claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant said in her application that she has been ignored by the landlord and very stressed as a result. This raises the question as to whether there has been a breach of quiet enjoyment because 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) RTA.
While I accept that the tenant’s experience living in the house has affected her enjoyment of the tenancy, I consider her experience to be the result of the draughts and missing repairs. I do not find there has also been a breach of quiet enjoyment. The tenant has not proved this claim and it is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in social housing and when landlords are ordered to pay exemplary damages. See 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933323 — Exemplary damages at 4 Vennell Street, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933323 — Exemplary damages at 4 Vennell Street, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I make work orders?

Does the house comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Is maintenance required?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and compensation?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I make work orders?

Does the house comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Is maintenance required?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and compensation?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions