What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940825 about?

This case concerned a exemplary damages dispute. The net award was $3,813.94.

How much money was awarded in case 4940825?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund The Broken Window: $186.94 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940825?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11141527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940825 about?

This case concerned a exemplary damages dispute. The net award was $3,813.94.

How much money was awarded in case 4940825?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund The Broken Window: $186.94 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940825?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11141527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

60 Abbotts Way, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940825 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940825 — net $3,813.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: s45(C	$3,600.00	s45(C
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Refund the broken window	$186.94	Refund the broken window
Net award	$3,813.94
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,813.94

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application filed with Tenancy Services on 16 July 2024. Initially the application was for a work order after serving the landlord notice about issues with the electrical system in the premises, exemplary damages for breach of a landlord’s obligation to maintain and comply with building, health, and safety requirements. In addition, the tenant claimed that the bond had not been lodged within the specified time and that she had been charged to repair a window that she had not damaged.
The tenancy at this property has ended so a work order is no longer required. Background:
The tenant, her husband and 4 young children commenced a tenancy at 60 Abbotts Way, Remuera on 8 July 2021.
The landlord named in the Tenancy Agreement and the application is Monte Cecilia Housing Trust, (“Monte Cecilia”). Monte Cecilia is not the owner of the property as this is a rental agreement between Monte Cecilia and a private owner.
Monte Cecilia then rents out the property to their clients. The tenant and her family are clients of Monte Cecilia.
As Monte Cecilia name themselves as “landlord” in the tenancy agreement, and not “as agent,” I must consider Monte Cecilia as having taken the legal obligations for the tenancy between themselves and the tenant.
Monte Cecilia initiated a Healthy Homes Assessment on the property to ensure compliance with the legal requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and the Healthy Home Standard that are compulsory as of July 2024.
The Healthy Homes Assessment identified a number of non-compliant areas in the home, such a draught stopping and ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom.
The owner sent an electrician to the property to carry out some electrical work in the kitchen and upgrading the existing light circuit protection at the switchboard. Once the electrician had done the work, he made comments to the tenant directly saying that the wiring in the ceiling was “dodgy” and very old and it was a fire hazard waiting to happen. He apparently said that the power point/box needed to be replaced.
The tenant was concerned about the fire risk to herself and her family. She contacted Monte Cecilia who contacted the owner for comment. The owner replied that “If the tenant is not happy with the wiring, I suggest that she finds somewhere else. We do not intend to rewire or upgrade. There is no necessity.”
The tenant issued a 14-day notice about other issues with the home and mentioned the conversation with the landlord’s electrician. Failure to maintain:
[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. -provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
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.
The tenant raised a number of issues with the house over the tenancy. The landlord sent a person to undertake a full Healthy Homes Assessment. The home was found to be non-compliant in regard to draught stopping throughout the house and ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord sent an electrician to supply and install a kitchen extractor fan, run new electrical cable to an existing light switch and upgrade the existing switchboard. It was at this time the electrician made comments to the tenant that the electrical wiring was dangerous. The tenant and her husband were so concerned about their health and safety, they took their 4 children to live with their grandparents rather than staying in the home.
Subsequently the tenant had another electrician from Astra Electrical come to the property to assess the electrical safety in the house. The tenant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the report dated 10 July 2024. This report stated that the electrical system was non complaint with current electrical standards, that the cables and old power points and switches were very old and degraded.
The report writer said that there was a significant fire risk and electrical shock due to old parts wearing down. The report commented that insurance companies charge high premiums for older systems as the risk of fire is much greater than modern electrical installations. Furthermore, that it is not uncommon for an insurance company to resist paying out in the event of a fire if electrical upgrades were ignored.
The tenant drew the landlord’s attention to the report and concerns for herself and her children residing in the house.
In addition to the electrical system issues the Healthy Homes Assessment identified serous gaps in every room in the house, causing draughts. The tenant says that the house was cold and draughty.
Shortly after the tenant raised these issues the landlord served a notice advising that they were ending the tenancy on this property and would rehome the family somewhere else.
I accept that the landlord is a social housing provider and a non-profit making organisation, but I cannot ignore the responsibility they took on as a landlord. Amongst other provisions in the RTA, s45(1) (c) clearly sets out that a landlord shall comply with all requirements in respect of building, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
As landlords they have an obligation to provide the tenants with a reasonable standard of housing. The tenant and her family should have been removed from the property as soon as the fire risk was identified. I understand the constraints when trying to house a family of 6 at short notice. However, the fire issue was identified in June 2024 and the family were not removed from the property until October 2024.
Equally there should have been an inspection carried out before this family were placed in this property to ensure it was complaint and safe.
The landlord has failed to comply with their obligations under the s45 of the RTA and I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While I accept that it may not have been deliberately intentional that the landlord failed to provide a safe and complaint home. However, at the outset the landlord failed to ensure the safety of the home and then not immediately removing the tenant once the danger was identified, is an intentional act.
The effect on the tenant and her family were significant. The children were removed from the home and placed with extended family. The stress described by the tenant was real and concerning. It is in the public interest that landlords provide tenants with reasonable and safe houses to rent.
I find the breach of the landlord obligations to be serious in this case and warrant a significant award of exemplary damages to the tenant, I am reducing that award given the nature of the landlord as a social housing provider. I find the landlord should pay the tenant the sum of $3600.00 in exemplary damages for breaching their obligations under the RTA and the tenancy agreement. Broken window:
There is no dispute that the tenant was charged for breaking a window at the property. The tenant says she paid $186.94 for the window repair.
The tenant said that there were issues with the windows not opening due to the wooden joinery swelling. The tenant complained to the landlord. The landlord sent someone around to do the healthy homes assessment.
The tenant says that after this person had left, she saw the glass in the window was cracked. She assumes that when the assessor was trying to open and close the swollen rotten windows and latches, they broke the glass.
The tenant advised her property manager immediately.
The landlord has not disputed the facts as set out by the tenant. Therefore, I find that on the balance of probability the tenant is more likely than not to be correct in her claim.
The landlord is to refund the sum of $186.94 to the tenant. Failure to lodge the bond s19 RTA.
[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 there is no record of them lodging the bond with the bond centre. The tenancy agreement clearly states that the tenant was to pay the rent and bond before the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant rang the Bond Centre during the hearing, and it was confirmed that there was no bond lodged in their system for her associated with this tenancy. The tenant is adamant that the bond was paid through WINZ, and she had to repay the debt. The tenant has not proved proof that WINZ paid the bond, and that she is repaying it.
I do not have proof that from WINZ to confirm that the bond was paid to the landlord.
The landlord provided evidence after the hearing to support their claim that the tenant had not paid her bond. The landlord provided emails to the tenant during the tenancy requesting that she pay the bond.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that she paid the bond and the landlord failed to lodge the bond.
I dismiss the tenants claim that the landlord failed to lodge the bond. Door stoppers/liability for repairs to the toilet:
During the hearing, the tenant raised these claims. I am not in a position to determine them without further information. If the tenant wishes to pursue these claims she can reapply to the Tribunal for a hearing on theses claims. Suppression and filing fee:
The tenant has applied for suppression of her name and identifying details. As she has been successful with her application, I will grant suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has largely succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940825 — net $3,813.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: s45(C	$3,600.00	s45(C
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Refund the broken window	$186.94	Refund the broken window
Net award	$3,813.94
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,813.94

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application filed with Tenancy Services on 16 July 2024. Initially the application was for a work order after serving the landlord notice about issues with the electrical system in the premises, exemplary damages for breach of a landlord’s obligation to maintain and comply with building, health, and safety requirements. In addition, the tenant claimed that the bond had not been lodged within the specified time and that she had been charged to repair a window that she had not damaged.
The tenancy at this property has ended so a work order is no longer required. Background:
The tenant, her husband and 4 young children commenced a tenancy at 60 Abbotts Way, Remuera on 8 July 2021.
The landlord named in the Tenancy Agreement and the application is Monte Cecilia Housing Trust, (“Monte Cecilia”). Monte Cecilia is not the owner of the property as this is a rental agreement between Monte Cecilia and a private owner.
Monte Cecilia then rents out the property to their clients. The tenant and her family are clients of Monte Cecilia.
As Monte Cecilia name themselves as “landlord” in the tenancy agreement, and not “as agent,” I must consider Monte Cecilia as having taken the legal obligations for the tenancy between themselves and the tenant.
Monte Cecilia initiated a Healthy Homes Assessment on the property to ensure compliance with the legal requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and the Healthy Home Standard that are compulsory as of July 2024.
The Healthy Homes Assessment identified a number of non-compliant areas in the home, such a draught stopping and ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom.
The owner sent an electrician to the property to carry out some electrical work in the kitchen and upgrading the existing light circuit protection at the switchboard. Once the electrician had done the work, he made comments to the tenant directly saying that the wiring in the ceiling was “dodgy” and very old and it was a fire hazard waiting to happen. He apparently said that the power point/box needed to be replaced.
The tenant was concerned about the fire risk to herself and her family. She contacted Monte Cecilia who contacted the owner for comment. The owner replied that “If the tenant is not happy with the wiring, I suggest that she finds somewhere else. We do not intend to rewire or upgrade. There is no necessity.”
The tenant issued a 14-day notice about other issues with the home and mentioned the conversation with the landlord’s electrician. Failure to maintain:
[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. -provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
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.
The tenant raised a number of issues with the house over the tenancy. The landlord sent a person to undertake a full Healthy Homes Assessment. The home was found to be non-compliant in regard to draught stopping throughout the house and ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord sent an electrician to supply and install a kitchen extractor fan, run new electrical cable to an existing light switch and upgrade the existing switchboard. It was at this time the electrician made comments to the tenant that the electrical wiring was dangerous. The tenant and her husband were so concerned about their health and safety, they took their 4 children to live with their grandparents rather than staying in the home.
Subsequently the tenant had another electrician from Astra Electrical come to the property to assess the electrical safety in the house. The tenant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the report dated 10 July 2024. This report stated that the electrical system was non complaint with current electrical standards, that the cables and old power points and switches were very old and degraded.
The report writer said that there was a significant fire risk and electrical shock due to old parts wearing down. The report commented that insurance companies charge high premiums for older systems as the risk of fire is much greater than modern electrical installations. Furthermore, that it is not uncommon for an insurance company to resist paying out in the event of a fire if electrical upgrades were ignored.
The tenant drew the landlord’s attention to the report and concerns for herself and her children residing in the house.
In addition to the electrical system issues the Healthy Homes Assessment identified serous gaps in every room in the house, causing draughts. The tenant says that the house was cold and draughty.
Shortly after the tenant raised these issues the landlord served a notice advising that they were ending the tenancy on this property and would rehome the family somewhere else.
I accept that the landlord is a social housing provider and a non-profit making organisation, but I cannot ignore the responsibility they took on as a landlord. Amongst other provisions in the RTA, s45(1) (c) clearly sets out that a landlord shall comply with all requirements in respect of building, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
As landlords they have an obligation to provide the tenants with a reasonable standard of housing. The tenant and her family should have been removed from the property as soon as the fire risk was identified. I understand the constraints when trying to house a family of 6 at short notice. However, the fire issue was identified in June 2024 and the family were not removed from the property until October 2024.
Equally there should have been an inspection carried out before this family were placed in this property to ensure it was complaint and safe.
The landlord has failed to comply with their obligations under the s45 of the RTA and I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While I accept that it may not have been deliberately intentional that the landlord failed to provide a safe and complaint home. However, at the outset the landlord failed to ensure the safety of the home and then not immediately removing the tenant once the danger was identified, is an intentional act.
The effect on the tenant and her family were significant. The children were removed from the home and placed with extended family. The stress described by the tenant was real and concerning. It is in the public interest that landlords provide tenants with reasonable and safe houses to rent.
I find the breach of the landlord obligations to be serious in this case and warrant a significant award of exemplary damages to the tenant, I am reducing that award given the nature of the landlord as a social housing provider. I find the landlord should pay the tenant the sum of $3600.00 in exemplary damages for breaching their obligations under the RTA and the tenancy agreement. Broken window:
There is no dispute that the tenant was charged for breaking a window at the property. The tenant says she paid $186.94 for the window repair.
The tenant said that there were issues with the windows not opening due to the wooden joinery swelling. The tenant complained to the landlord. The landlord sent someone around to do the healthy homes assessment.
The tenant says that after this person had left, she saw the glass in the window was cracked. She assumes that when the assessor was trying to open and close the swollen rotten windows and latches, they broke the glass.
The tenant advised her property manager immediately.
The landlord has not disputed the facts as set out by the tenant. Therefore, I find that on the balance of probability the tenant is more likely than not to be correct in her claim.
The landlord is to refund the sum of $186.94 to the tenant. Failure to lodge the bond s19 RTA.
[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 there is no record of them lodging the bond with the bond centre. The tenancy agreement clearly states that the tenant was to pay the rent and bond before the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant rang the Bond Centre during the hearing, and it was confirmed that there was no bond lodged in their system for her associated with this tenancy. The tenant is adamant that the bond was paid through WINZ, and she had to repay the debt. The tenant has not proved proof that WINZ paid the bond, and that she is repaying it.
I do not have proof that from WINZ to confirm that the bond was paid to the landlord.
The landlord provided evidence after the hearing to support their claim that the tenant had not paid her bond. The landlord provided emails to the tenant during the tenancy requesting that she pay the bond.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that she paid the bond and the landlord failed to lodge the bond.
I dismiss the tenants claim that the landlord failed to lodge the bond. Door stoppers/liability for repairs to the toilet:
During the hearing, the tenant raised these claims. I am not in a position to determine them without further information. If the tenant wishes to pursue these claims she can reapply to the Tribunal for a hearing on theses claims. Suppression and filing fee:
The tenant has applied for suppression of her name and identifying details. As she has been successful with her application, I will grant suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has largely succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940825 — Exemplary damages at 60 Abbotts Way, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940825 — Exemplary damages at 60 Abbotts Way, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions