What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939743 about?

The tribunal order states: Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty,

How much money was awarded in case 4939743?

Agreed Builder’S Costs: $230.78 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,039.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939743?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939743?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11016420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939743 about?

The tribunal order states: Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty,

How much money was awarded in case 4939743?

Agreed Builder’S Costs: $230.78 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,039.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939743?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939743?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11016420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

137 Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939743 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939743 — net $1,269.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/8/2024	$1,039.00	Rent arrears to 31/8/2024
Agreed builder’s costs	$230.78	Agreed builder’s costs
Net award	$1,269.78
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,269.78

Order

Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty, Valentine Matt Munro and William Peter Smith are liable to pay [The landlord/s] $1,269.78 from the bond calculated as per the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,269.78 Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty, Valentine Matt Munro and William Peter Smtih: $2,130.22
The application by Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty, Valentine Matt Munro and William Peter Smtih for exemplary is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the re scheduled hearing.
The tenants applied for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy due to end on 31/12/2024.
In addition, the tenants sought work orders, compensation, and exemplary damages for failure to maintain and breach of Healthy Homes Standards.
Initially the landlord cross applied for reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy, compensation of $469.41 and rent arrears.
By Interim Order dated 15/8/2024 the Tribunal, by agreement reduced the term of the fixed term tenancy to end at 5pm on Saturday 31 August 2024.
The tenants agreed to pay the landlord compensation of $230.78 from the bond for repairs to weatherboards and an Order has been made to this effect.
At the rescheduled hearing the landlord amended their claim to only rent arrears.

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $2,078.00 to 31/8/2024.
In support of the claim the landlord provided rent records which show that the tenants reduced their weekly rent payments by $200.00 from 14/6/2024.
The tenants submitted that the landlord had agreed to the rent reduction because of the ventilation issues in the premises.
In response, the landlord submitted that his agreement had been subject to the tenants agreeing to move out within a short, specified timeframe, which they did not do.
Both parties provided text messages to support their respective positions.
I find the tenants are liable for the rent arrears sought.
I am persuaded by the written evidence that while the landlord agreed to a rent reduction it was on the basis that the tenants vacated the premises within a short, specified timeframe.

Has the landlord complied with their obligations?

Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty, Valentine Matt Munro and William Peter Smtih claim that the landlord has breached their obligations by renting out premises subject to dampness and mould and failing to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), including draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage standards.
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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, but as this tenancy commenced on 1/1/2024 the compliance date was 30/4/2024.
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 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 Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants submitted that the fan for the dryer was defective and let moisture into the ceiling cavity and the laundry, there were rotten weather boards, the spouting leaked, and vegetation overshadowed the premises.
In support of their claim that the premises suffered from mould on all surfaces the tenants provided extensive photographs, the first of these having been taken on 28/5/2024 and text messages.
The tenants also provided photographs and email comments from the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team site visit on 23/7/2024.
Unfortunately, the tenants were unable to arrange for the investigating officer to appear at the Tribunal to give evidence.
While agreeing that there were degraded external weatherboards and spouting on the premises the landlord did not consider these were the main reason for the presence of mould, which he believed was due to lack of adequate ventilation.
The landlord also provided extensive photographs, an entry inspection report of 31/12/2023 and an inspection on 5/4/2024.
The landlord agreed that the roof needed replacing but disputed that he had told the tenants this would be done during their tenancy.
A builder who undertook work on the property gave evidence for the landlord about work he had undertaken, in particular the repair of weather boards after a tenant’s car crashed into the premises on 16/1/2024.
The applicant, in this case the tenants, are required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In this instance the evidence is evenly poised, and, unfortunate as it may be for the tenants, I find the onus has not been satisfied by them.
There is no dispute that the photographs provided by the tenants show extensive mould.
Nor is there any disagreement that the photographs provided by the landlord do not show any mould.
The issue therefore is the cause of the mould.
The tenants suggest the premises were damp because of the dryer venting moisture into the ceiling space.
However, despite becoming aware of what was described as a “soft ceiling” in April, the tenants did not tell the landlord until 10 June about the problem, by which stage the relationship between the parties had effectively broken down and the landlord was unable to arrange access for repairs.
The landlord disputed that the previous years tenants had raised any issue about the dryer.
I consider the evidence supports that the issues with dampness and mould were a combination of the problems with the dryer, the length of time taken for the tenants to advise the landlord and lack of adequate ventilation by the tenants.
However, the landlord while providing evidence about the heating, insulation and extractor fans did confirm extensive maintenance was needed on the property, especially the roof, rotten weatherboards, guttering and spouting.
I find, based on the landlord’s evidence about the state of the premises that they have committed unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable condition and have breached healthy homes standards with regard to draft stopping, water ingress and drainage.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord has committed unlawful acts by failing to provide and maintain the premises, and breaching Healthy Homes Standards, I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
An award of exemplary damages is made at the Tribunal’s discretion when a party has committed a defined unlawful act. In making an award I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
The first of these is the intent of the landlord.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001)
The District Court has generally rejected a landlord pleading confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and insurance details, the Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
In this instance I do not consider the evidence supports that the landlord intentionally failed to maintain the premises or failed to comply with healthy homes standards.
Rather, the landlord accepted that the premises were in need of extensive remedial work, including the roof replacement and attempted to mitigate the loss of both parties by agreeing to end the tenancy early.
There is limited evidence of mitigation of loss by the tenants who did not advise the landlord of the issue with the venting of the dryer for two months which exacerbated the problems of dampness and mould and obstructed the landlord in undertaking repairs.
Exemplary damages are not available to the tenants.
However, I consider an award of compensation is reasonable because of what the tenants had to put up with due to the state of the premises not being well maintained and the overgrow vegetation affecting ventilation and the fact some of their possessions were damaged.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
In the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties I have awarded compensation equivalent to half the rent arrears owed to the landlord.
No filing fee is awarded because the applications effectively cancel each other out.
Name suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they were substantially successful with their claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939743 — net $1,269.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/8/2024	$1,039.00	Rent arrears to 31/8/2024
Agreed builder’s costs	$230.78	Agreed builder’s costs
Net award	$1,269.78
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,269.78

Order

Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty, Valentine Matt Munro and William Peter Smith are liable to pay [The landlord/s] $1,269.78 from the bond calculated as per the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,269.78 Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty, Valentine Matt Munro and William Peter Smtih: $2,130.22
The application by Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty, Valentine Matt Munro and William Peter Smtih for exemplary is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the re scheduled hearing.
The tenants applied for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy due to end on 31/12/2024.
In addition, the tenants sought work orders, compensation, and exemplary damages for failure to maintain and breach of Healthy Homes Standards.
Initially the landlord cross applied for reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy, compensation of $469.41 and rent arrears.
By Interim Order dated 15/8/2024 the Tribunal, by agreement reduced the term of the fixed term tenancy to end at 5pm on Saturday 31 August 2024.
The tenants agreed to pay the landlord compensation of $230.78 from the bond for repairs to weatherboards and an Order has been made to this effect.
At the rescheduled hearing the landlord amended their claim to only rent arrears.

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $2,078.00 to 31/8/2024.
In support of the claim the landlord provided rent records which show that the tenants reduced their weekly rent payments by $200.00 from 14/6/2024.
The tenants submitted that the landlord had agreed to the rent reduction because of the ventilation issues in the premises.
In response, the landlord submitted that his agreement had been subject to the tenants agreeing to move out within a short, specified timeframe, which they did not do.
Both parties provided text messages to support their respective positions.
I find the tenants are liable for the rent arrears sought.
I am persuaded by the written evidence that while the landlord agreed to a rent reduction it was on the basis that the tenants vacated the premises within a short, specified timeframe.

Has the landlord complied with their obligations?

Colbey James Ingram, Hunter Jaiden Davis Lucas, Joost Pieter Doherty, Valentine Matt Munro and William Peter Smtih claim that the landlord has breached their obligations by renting out premises subject to dampness and mould and failing to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), including draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage standards.
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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, but as this tenancy commenced on 1/1/2024 the compliance date was 30/4/2024.
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 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 Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants submitted that the fan for the dryer was defective and let moisture into the ceiling cavity and the laundry, there were rotten weather boards, the spouting leaked, and vegetation overshadowed the premises.
In support of their claim that the premises suffered from mould on all surfaces the tenants provided extensive photographs, the first of these having been taken on 28/5/2024 and text messages.
The tenants also provided photographs and email comments from the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team site visit on 23/7/2024.
Unfortunately, the tenants were unable to arrange for the investigating officer to appear at the Tribunal to give evidence.
While agreeing that there were degraded external weatherboards and spouting on the premises the landlord did not consider these were the main reason for the presence of mould, which he believed was due to lack of adequate ventilation.
The landlord also provided extensive photographs, an entry inspection report of 31/12/2023 and an inspection on 5/4/2024.
The landlord agreed that the roof needed replacing but disputed that he had told the tenants this would be done during their tenancy.
A builder who undertook work on the property gave evidence for the landlord about work he had undertaken, in particular the repair of weather boards after a tenant’s car crashed into the premises on 16/1/2024.
The applicant, in this case the tenants, are required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In this instance the evidence is evenly poised, and, unfortunate as it may be for the tenants, I find the onus has not been satisfied by them.
There is no dispute that the photographs provided by the tenants show extensive mould.
Nor is there any disagreement that the photographs provided by the landlord do not show any mould.
The issue therefore is the cause of the mould.
The tenants suggest the premises were damp because of the dryer venting moisture into the ceiling space.
However, despite becoming aware of what was described as a “soft ceiling” in April, the tenants did not tell the landlord until 10 June about the problem, by which stage the relationship between the parties had effectively broken down and the landlord was unable to arrange access for repairs.
The landlord disputed that the previous years tenants had raised any issue about the dryer.
I consider the evidence supports that the issues with dampness and mould were a combination of the problems with the dryer, the length of time taken for the tenants to advise the landlord and lack of adequate ventilation by the tenants.
However, the landlord while providing evidence about the heating, insulation and extractor fans did confirm extensive maintenance was needed on the property, especially the roof, rotten weatherboards, guttering and spouting.
I find, based on the landlord’s evidence about the state of the premises that they have committed unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable condition and have breached healthy homes standards with regard to draft stopping, water ingress and drainage.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord has committed unlawful acts by failing to provide and maintain the premises, and breaching Healthy Homes Standards, I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
An award of exemplary damages is made at the Tribunal’s discretion when a party has committed a defined unlawful act. In making an award I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
The first of these is the intent of the landlord.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001)
The District Court has generally rejected a landlord pleading confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and insurance details, the Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
In this instance I do not consider the evidence supports that the landlord intentionally failed to maintain the premises or failed to comply with healthy homes standards.
Rather, the landlord accepted that the premises were in need of extensive remedial work, including the roof replacement and attempted to mitigate the loss of both parties by agreeing to end the tenancy early.
There is limited evidence of mitigation of loss by the tenants who did not advise the landlord of the issue with the venting of the dryer for two months which exacerbated the problems of dampness and mould and obstructed the landlord in undertaking repairs.
Exemplary damages are not available to the tenants.
However, I consider an award of compensation is reasonable because of what the tenants had to put up with due to the state of the premises not being well maintained and the overgrow vegetation affecting ventilation and the fact some of their possessions were damaged.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
In the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties I have awarded compensation equivalent to half the rent arrears owed to the landlord.
No filing fee is awarded because the applications effectively cancel each other out.
Name suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they were substantially successful with their claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939743 — Rent arrears at 137 Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939743 — Rent arrears at 137 Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

Has the landlord complied with their obligations?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

Has the landlord complied with their obligations?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions