What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4944393 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4944393?

Compensation: Bed: $743.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity bathro…: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4944393?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4944393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11501408-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4944393 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4944393?

Compensation: Bed: $743.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity bathro…: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4944393?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4944393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11501408-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4944393 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4944393 — net $3,122.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bed	$743.00	Bed
Compensation: Repairs bathroom	$632.50	Repairs bathroom
Compensation: Loss of amenity bathroom	$520.00	Loss of amenity bathroom
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,200.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,122.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,122.50

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

This tenant application concerns an application which is the result of two leaks that occurred in the tenant’s property in October 2022 and November 2022 respectively. The first leak

The tenant stated that she noticed a hissing noise in the kitchen area of the premises in October 2022. A little while late the tenant noticed the floor tiles being warmer than usual. She says she contacted her landlord, Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited in October 2022. The representative for Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited stated that she doesn’t have a record of that happening. It is possible that the tenant notified one of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited’s associated workers such as a social person when they visited. In November 2022 a leak then came up through the floor and flooded both of the bedrooms. The landlord was notified of this immediately.

The tenant says both of her beds and a chest of drawers were badly damaged by the flood and needed to be replaced.

The tenant replaced one of the beds at a cost $1,239.00 which required an advance from Work and Income New Zealand. The tenant says she is still paying this debt off. The other bed was replaced by borrowing a bed from a friend. The landlord pointed out that the chest of drawers is still evident in the photographs from the March 2023 tenancy inspection. The tenant accepts this but says they were damaged by the flood and she discarded the chest of drawers at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord stated that the first note she has of the leak is from 15 November 2022, which may be the date that the flooding occurred in the bedrooms. Trades were instructed and carried out repairs which were finished within about a week.

The tenant provided an invoice dated 22 November 2022 for the bed she purchased to replace her damaged bed.

On the basis of the evidence provided to the Tribunal I accept that the tenant’s bed was damaged by the flood and needed replacing.

The tenant stated that this bed was approximately three years old and had cost $2,500.00 when new. I am cognisant of the fact that the tenant should be compensated for her loss but should not be put in a position that is better than she was in prior to the leak. Because the bed was already approximately three years old I have awarded to 60% of the replacement cost of the bed.

The amount is proved.

I have not received any information relating to the extent of the loss to the tenant regarding the second bed or the chest of drawers. I am not persuaded of the extent of the damage. I accept the landlord’s submission that the drawers appear to have still been in use 4 months later, and I have no information regarding any expense incurred in respect of these two items of furniture. These claims are not proved. The second leak

The second leak occurred in the bathroom area almost as soon as the first leak was repaired on 22 November 2022. The landlord stated that they were notified by the tenant of this leak on 25 November 2022 and a plumber was immediately sent to fix the leak.

To fix the leak the plumber cut two large holes in the bathroom; one in the side of the bath cradle, and the second in the wall between the bath and the vanity. The first hole is approximately 800mm x 500mm and the other is approximately 500mm x 300mm.

The leak was repaired successfully but the plumber did not repair the holes he made in the walls. The tenant says she advised Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited but it appears they may be able to confirm a record of their existence of the holes until March 2023. This is when their Tenancy Coordinator advised the maintenance team to fix the holes. For some reason however, the holes were still not fixed. The fact that there was a breakdown in communication within the landlord’s systems does not excuse them of their responsibility to complete the repairs to a reasonable standard and within a reasonable timeframe.

The tenant says that on 31 January 2023 she was seriously assaulted and was hospitalised with a broken neck which required more than one operation.

The tenant says that from this time on she had carers coming to her house on a regular basis. Because the landlord was responding to her requests to have the holes fixed, the tenant got a quote from [Builder] on 28 March 2023 to fix the holes. The quote came to $632.50 and included labour and materials. She forwarded this quote to the landlord.

Eventually due to continued inaction from the landlord, on 23 May 2023 the tenant bought repair materials from [Shop] and fixed the holes herself. She says she did this at great physical emotional cost to herself as she was still in a halo- brace. The tenant produced two invoices for the materials for $104.62 and $69.50 respectively.

The tenant stated that she is seeking a further $10,000.00 for the emotional hardship she endured, and the physical pain she went through in fixing the holes herself.

The landlord stated they are prepared to pay for the cost of materials but nothing else. The landlord did not provide any explanation as to why the tenant had to endure six months with two large holes in her bathroom, and no explanation as to when she could have expected the landlord to make the repairs.

I consider it reasonable that as well as the materials, the tenant is compensated for her time in repairing the holes.

The [Builder]’s quote states 10 units at $55.00. The tenant said that because of her difficulty in moving whilst wearing a halo-brace, she took a week to complete the job. In the circumstances I consider it reasonable that the tenant is compensated the same amount that [Builder]’s quoted. The claim is proved and that amount is ordered.

I do not make an award specifically for the physical and emotional harm. However, I do award exemplary damages below for the landlord failing to maintain the premises. I consider the tenant should be compensated for the loss of amenity which came from having to use a bathroom with a large hole in the side of the bath and a large hole in the wall for a period of 26 weeks. I consider the inconvenience of not having a presentable home was exacerbated by the fact that during this time the tenant was vulnerable due to a serious injury, and also by the fact that because of the tenant’s condition she required outside carers coming into her house on a regular basis. I consider the tenant should be compensated by $20.00 per week as general damages for the loss of amenity for the 26 weeks that her bathroom was in this state. Failure to maintain premises

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.

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(1A) and Schedule 1A, RTA.

The landlord failing to fix two large holes that their plumber made for a period of over six months in my view is a failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. As mentioned earlier, the landlord today was unable to provide a reasonable explanation as to why this repair was never undertaken by the landlord. 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) RTA.

As already stated, the landlord’s failure to fix the holes or engage with the tenant productively about the holes being fixed had a large impact physically and emotionally on the tenant. I can only conclude that the fact that six months after the holes were made by an agent of the landlord the tenant fixed the holes herself, points to the hopelessness the tenant experienced in dealing with the landlord. The landlord is a professional provider of community housing and they have fallen well short in their responsibility under the RTA.

Due to the above factors, I consider an award of $1,200.00 exemplary damages is appropriate in this case. Name suppression

The Tribunal may of its own initiative order suppression of a party’s identifying details having regard to the interests of the parties. See section 95A(4) of the RTA.

I consider there is sensitive information involved in the material facts of this application which mean that it is in the interests of the tenant that her details are not published. The filing fee

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4944393 — net $3,122.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bed	$743.00	Bed
Compensation: Repairs bathroom	$632.50	Repairs bathroom
Compensation: Loss of amenity bathroom	$520.00	Loss of amenity bathroom
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,200.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,122.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,122.50