What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949793 about?

The tribunal order states: Tbt Property Management Limited must pay [The party] and [The party] $3,362.26 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4949793?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949793?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Rent arrears, Exemplary damages, Property damage, Smoke alarms, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12537308-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949793 about?

The tribunal order states: Tbt Property Management Limited must pay [The party] and [The party] $3,362.26 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4949793?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949793?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Rent arrears, Exemplary damages, Property damage, Smoke alarms, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12537308-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42A Halsey Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4949793 — State of repair

Order

Tbt Property Management Limited must pay [The party] and [The party] $3,362.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (6271997-001) to Yvonne- Dannie Tiare Rachel Blakelock and [The party] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 13 November 2024, 17 February 2025 and 6 Augst 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent and water rates arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all evidence heard/provide is specifically referenced in this decision. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The parties agreed the tenancy commenced on 4 March 2022 and ended on 19 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The amount owing has taken into consideration: a. No rent being charged for 1 to 3 March 2022, due to a delay in the tenants being able to move into the house because: i. It was not clean; ii. There was rubbish that needed removing; iii. The owner’s belongings were still stored in the garage; iv. There was no key provided to the garage; and v. Only one remote control to the gate was supplied and it did not work. b. 14 days rent being deducted from the rent summary from 2 to 15 February 2024. There had been some delay in the landlord being able to access the premise due to the tenants taking the keys back to the office and not getting a receipt for them and the landlord claiming that these keys were never found by them. This meant the vacant possession date was in dispute. The parties agreed at the hearing that 19 January 2024 was the agreed tenancy end date despite the keys not being located by that date. It was clear from the evidence that the tenants had moved out on that date.
The landlord has proven that the tenants owed $900.89 in water rates arrears at the end of the tenancy. I have awarded this amount to the landlord but have also awarded the tenants compensation of $250.00 as a water rates rebate in recognition of the leaks the tenants evidence proves occurred during the tenancy.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants accepted that they did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all their rubbish and accepted these costs.
The tenants say they returned the keys to the office on 22 January 2024 at 12:38pm. The tenants provided the Tribunal with a Google maps confirmation from their iPhone that shows they were at that location at that time on that day. This does not however prove that they dropped the keys off while at that location at this time. The tenants did not have a confirmation of acceptance form or a key handover form from the office, which the landlord confirmed is its standard operating procedure that all its team are aware of and bound by. Because the landlord did not receive the keys the tenants claim they left at the office, and the tenants have no compelling evidence to prove they returned the keys, the locks had to be changed at the tenant’s cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenants have proven with photographic evidence that they are not responsible for the $2,200.35 claimed by the landlord for lawn mowing and dumping of green waste. The tenants moved out on 19 January 2024, and they proved that they mowed the lawns and weeded the garden on 15 January 2024. The invoice the landlord provided for the lawn mowing, weeding and green waster removal was dated 3 March 2024, nearly two months after the tenants had moved out. This claim is dismissed as the tenants have disproven it.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy as a result of the tenants’ careless acts or omissions, the careless acts or omissions of persons at the premise with the tenants’ consent, and that this damage is more than fair wear and tear: a. Sleepout shower damage in the bathroom; and b. Dog damage to carpet. Shower
The landlord claims the tenants did not inform them of the damage to the shower tray in the sleepout bathroom and that the damage had resulted from the tenants careless acts or omissions and that because this hole was not reported to the landlord as soon as the hairline cracks appeared and/or when the hole in the shower tray occurred, the resulting water related damage was far more extensive than it would have been had the tenants reported it immediately.
I accept the tenants evidence that they were not aware of the hairline cracks and only became aware of the issue when one of the tenants was showering and went through the shower tray during a shower as the flooring underneath the shower had sustained water damage that would no longer allow the shower tray to sustain any reasonable weight bearing. This incident occurred two weeks before the tenancy ended.
The tenants confirmed that they had told a real estate agent about the hole straight after it happened. This real estate agent was not part of the property management company managing the property. This agent was only looking to sell the property and did not pass the damage on to the property management agency. The tenants did not call their property manager nor did they report the damage on the property management company’s portal.
Additionally, the tenants had videos and photographs from the day the tenancy commenced that show there were gaps around the shower, unsealed gib and silicone that needed replacing in this bathroom. These issues may have contributed to the water damage that ultimately led to the degeneration of the floor under the shower tray and the shower tray ultimately breaking when the tenant took a shower.
The tenants say they never used the shower again after the hole was made but had finished their shower at the time the hole occurred, as the person has covered in soap and shampoo. That would have resulted in some water getting into the flooring underneath the shower.
The tenants’ photographs and videos also prove the paint was coming off the shower walls and the gib showed signs of rot when they moved in and these issues were raised with the landlord in the tenants first email after the tenancy commenced. They say the landlord did nothing to investigate or address these concerns.
The landlord produced photographs of the sleep out at the end of the tenancy that show significant water damage in the sleep out. The carpet is wet and there is mould on the walls of the sleep out that show there had been some sort of leak issue occurring for longer than 2 weeks before the ends of the tenancy. The landlord also stated that there were signs of black mould in the hairline cracks that prove the cracks had been there for more than 2 weeks. The tenants reiterated that they had not seen and were not aware of any hairline cracks and none had been picked up by the landlord during any of the property inspections.
The landlord confirmed that the insurance company had declined the owners claim as the insurer considered this to be gradual process damage that was not covered by its policy. Therefore, the landlord is seeking compensation of $10,773.20 for what it claims was deliberate damage by the tenant.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenants deliberately or intentionally caused this damage or that the damage occurred as a result of their careless acts and failure to report the hole to the property manager in a timely manner. I find that the evidence supports a conclusion that this was accidental damage caused by s slow gradual leak that was not obvious to either party until the shower tray broke. Therefore, I dismiss the landlord’s claim. Carpet
The landlord says the tenants had dogs at the premise and that the dogs urinated on the carpet, leaving it stained and smelling strongly of pet urine. The landlord says it tried to clean the carpet, but the stains and smells could not be removed and the carpet had to be replaced. It seeks $7,000.00 compensation to cover the full cost of replacing the carpet, as the owner’s insurer declined its claim as it categorised the damage as malicious damage that the insurance policy did not cover.
The landlord also confirmed that the carpet was brand new at the start of this tenancy.
The tenants had photographs and videos that proved there were stains on the carpet when the tenancy commenced, so clearly the carpet was not new at that time. Additionally, the tenants claim the dogs never urinated inside at this premise or the previous tenancies they had. The tenants provided a reference from their prior landlord of four years that confirmed the tenants had kept the premise in great condition and that the two dogs had caused no damage to the premise.
Further, the tenants say if the dogs were causing issues at the property during the tenancy, the landlord would have raised this during the tenancy and not at the end. The tenants deny the dogs had caused any damage whatsoever to the premise and say that any smell was from the mould and dampness caused by constant leaks at the property.
There was no move in property inspection photographs taken by the landlord as the property manager had not come to the house until after the tenancy had commenced. The landlord accepted the tenants date stamped photographs and videos from the day they moved in.
The exit inspection photographs produced by the landlord do not show any real signs of stains on the carpet. The landlord relies solely on the invoice from the carpet layer that states there was dog urine all over the carpet that required the carpet and underlay to be fully replaced.
I am not satisfied that the landlord’s evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are responsible for the cost of replacing the carpet and underlay. There is no evidence on the entry photographs and videos that the carpet was in any worse condition than in the exit inspection photographs. I cannot be certain from the evidence produced that the tenants’ dogs damaged the carpet on the balance of probabilities. The tenants evidence does tend to disprove the claim on the balance of probabilities. There is no photographic or video evidence from the carpet layer that proves the carpet was urine soaked and not soaked with water from leaks. I therefore dismiss this claim as it has not be proven on the balance of probabilities.

Did the tenants fail to quite the premises?

Tbt Property Management Limited claims the tenants did not vacate the premises on 19 December 2023, in accordance with the 62-day termination notice issued to them by the landlord as the owners needed to move back into the house.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord had to rent a short-term rental until 20 December 2023 as they had to move out of their prior accommodation and could not move into their home until the tenants had moved out on 19 December 2023.
The tenants did not move out until 19 January 2024. When they did, there was confusion over they whereabouts of the keys. This resulted in the owners not getting vacant possession of the premise until 15 February 2024.
The tenants say the delay in them moving out was not unreasonable as they had trouble finding alternative accommodation at that time of the year and that they had taken all reasonably practicable steps to find a new home and to move out at the required time. They also stated that they did not know the date the owners had planned to move in. In the end the tenants had to split up their family and move into two houses instead of living together, when the younger tenants needed the support of the older tenant due to significant health issues the younger tenants had to deal with for which they required ongoing support.
The owners incurred significant costs due to the delay as they had no idea when the tenants would move out and had to pay higher rental costs to stay in the temporary rental accommodation until mid-March 2024. This caused them significant stress and inconvenience.
There was no evidence that the tenants kept the landlord informed of the reason for their delay in moving out or whether the landlord would allow them to remain at the premise until they found a new home. The evidence shows the tenants communication stopped around 8 November 2023. This was because of the younger female tenants health issues, she was not coping with the stress and her usual timely communication was affected.
I find the tenants have intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to quit the premises by 19 December 2023, at the end of the 62 day notice period, and not having made any sort of arrangement with the landlord to remain in the premise lawfully until 19 January 2024, when they moved out.
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.
I am satisfied the tenants intentionally refused to vacate the premise and that they intentionally put the landlord to the cost, stress and inconvenience of having to pay a high rental to remain in temporary rental accommodation when they did not know how long they would require this rental accommodation for and find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The tenants intentionally did not vacate the premise without reasonable excuse and took no steps to agree a longer termination date with the landlord; b. The landlord is entitled to rely on tenants vacating the premise after they have given valid lawful termination notice; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the tenants breach of its obligations to vacate the premise on termination of the tenancy; and d. it is in the public interest for tenants’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations vacate the premise on termination of the tenancy. Did the tenants fail to allow the landlord entry to the premise when it was entitled to enter?
Tbt Property Management Limited claims the tenants have not allowed it entry to the premises when it was entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says the tenants did not allow the real estate agents access to the house for the purposes of marketing it for sale and conducting viewings.
The evidence produced by the tenants prove that they were in direct contact with the real estate agent responsible for selling the property and that there was no evidence the tenants failed to allow this agent entry when it was legally entitled to enter.
This claim is dismissed as the landlord has failed to produce any evidence that proves it on the balance of probabilities.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?

[The party] and [The party] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching either of these s45(1) 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain A. Cockroaches in the kitchen 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenants claim there was a significant cockroach infestation at the premise that the landlord did little to nothing to address. It was first raised by the tenants by email on 3 March 2022.
The landlord states that it took the tenants some cockroach bait, around 7 March 2022, but had no record of when it purchased the alleged pest control or what it allegedly provided to the tenants.
The tenants produced video and photographic evidence of the cockroach infestation. They confirmed the landlord brough them one packet of cockroach bait and that this lasted them 3 months. Thereafter the landlord did not provide any cockroach bait, nor did it engage pest control to fumigate the premise.
The tenants say it cost them $39.98 every 3 months to buy cockroach bait to try to keep the pests controlled. They have claimed $279.86 compensation to cover the cost of this bait over the tenue of their tenancy.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the landlord intentionally did not take reasonable steps in a reasonable timeframe to have these pests controlled and that this left the tenants trying to deal with the problem themselves at their own cost. They proved they raised this issue at property inspections, although the property inspection reports make no note of this. The tenants reiterated that they had so many property manager during their tenure that there was no continuity in addressing any issues raised during property inspections, despite various property managers confirming they would address numerous issues raised, including the cockroach infestation.
I award the tenants the $279.86 compensation to cover the cost of this bait over the tenue of their tenancy.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenants has lived for 98 weeks with the inconvenience and stress caused by these uncontrolled pests running around the ceilings at night and infecting their belongings; b. The tenants also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind it of its obligations under the RTA to no avail; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and stress for 98 weeks; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the bathroom related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. B. Plugs in kitchen
The tenants claim the two plugs in the kitchen were not working at the start of the tenancy and this was raised with the landlord in the tenants’ email of 3 March 2022.
The parties confirm these plugs were fixed by 7 March 2022. This timeframe was reasonable in all the circumstances. Therefore, the tenants claim is dismissed for lack of evidence proving it on the balance of probabilities. C. Bath
When the tenants picked up the key, they discovered the sealant on the bath had broken down and was peeling off, leaving sharp pieces of metal and paint in the bath. The landlord confirmed, on 7 March 2022, it provided the tenants with a clear sealant to use on the bath. The tenants confirmed they used this sealant but state it did not resolve the issue.
The tenants say they raised the issue with the dangerous bath at every property inspection, but nothing was done to address the issue. As such, they were unable to use the bath to bathe their children. They were forced to only use the shower for themselves and their children.
The property inspection reports provided to the Tribunal by the landlord do not mention the bath issue.
The tenants produced photographs that show the surface coating peeling off the bath on their entry inspection photographs dated 3 March 2022. They also produced photographs that prove they followed the instructions on the sealant provided to them and the bath coating continued to peel off after it had been sanded and the sealant applied. The photographs show the bath was in need of replacement.
The landlord was made aware the sealant had not worked, and I am satisfied the tenants did continue to raise this issue with the series of property managers they had during their tenancy.
I find that the tenants were unable to use the bath due to the peeling and sharp coating on the surface of the bath from 4 March 2022 to 19 January 2024, being 98 weeks, and that the landlord did nothing to follow up with the tenants whether the provided sealant had worked. The tenants say they were instructed to not raise issues between inspections and to raise them during inspections because they were raising to many issues. The tenants were not provided a copy of each property inspection report during the tenancy, so they were not aware of how many issues they were raising during these inspections that were not be recorded by the property managers until these proceedings.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the bath surface issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period of 98 weeks (4 March 2022 to 19 January 2024) they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having use of the bath, being a rent rebate of $4,900.00.
I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act, for which exemplary damages should be awarded, but given that the breach occurred more than 12 months before the tenants’ applications, The Tribunal is barred from making any exemplary damages awards (Refer to s109(2)(b) of the RTA). D. No instructions for HRV and couldn’t cool the house down
The tenants confirmed a heat pump and a rangehood were installed on 12 August 2022 and that the main house had an HRV system in it at the start of the tenancy that they could not use as they had no manual for it. They proved they first raised this issue in their email dated 3 March 2022.
The landlord says the owners provided the tenants a hard copy of the manual on 7 March 2022. The tenants deny this and say the owners did discuss this request with them on 7 March 2022 but did not provide the manual. Instead, they say the owners told them not to use the HRV and to use the fireplace for heating the house. The property managers say the owners have never told it that the HRV system could not be used so had informed the tenants that it could be used.
The tenants say that the failure to provide the HRV manual meant they had open windows all the time to ventilate the property, even in the winter. Further, if the HRV system was faulty, they do not accept the owners could not have had this investigated and fixed and say they informed the owners of this at the time they were told not to use it.
I am satisfied that the tenants raised this issue with the HRV manual on 3 March 2022 and that the manual was readily available to them online on hrv.co.nz under “manuals”. They took no steps to try and locate the manual online themselves. Additionally, I am not satisfied that there is nay evidence that proves the tenants were told the HRV was not working/faulty and the property managers were not ever made aware of the HRV not working, by the owners or the tenants. Therefore, the tenants claim is dismissed for lack of evidence proving it on the balance of probabilities. E. Cupboard handles in kitchen and window hinges/latches
The tenants 3 March 2022 email raises issues with the kitchen cupboard handles and window hinges. The tenants had evidence the kitchen cupboard handles were fixed on 7 March 2022, but the window hinges/latches were never fixed. As such, the windows could not be relied on to stay open and this caused a few windows to break when they slammed shut in the wind.
The landlord says a contractor came to look at the window hinges/latches on 24 January 2023, after which the contractor sent an email to the property managers saying the locks were tight and the frames intact. The tenants say they had some debate with the property manager about the state of the hinges not having been addressed by this contractor and they say they raised it again at property inspections.
The landlord notes that in the 7 July 2022 inspection report there are photographs of the windows open and intact and no notes about this issue. There is also no evidence the landlord investigated the issue after the 3 March 2022 tenant email by that date. The same property inspection report does show that some window latches are loose.
The tenants produced evidence that they replaced the window in the second bedroom from the front door on the left ( at the owner’s expense) as it broke from slamming shut due to faulty handles and hinges and after that they put a wooden stick in the windows to stop them slamming shut.
The tenants say they informed the landlord of the broken window on 24 January 2023, along with the door handle. A tradesman came to fix a door handle, another window glass that had broken from the faulty latch, the sleepout door lock and restrung the clothesline.
There is an email dated 22 February 2023 about the windows still constantly blowing shut and offering to send videos and wanting these fixed. There was no evidence produced by the landlord that it had got this issue investigated or remediated by the end of the tenancy.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the window hinge/latch issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period of 98 weeks (4 March 2022 to 19 January 2024) they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not being able to have their windows opened when they wanted to due to faulty hinges and latches, being a rent rebate of $980.00.
I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act, for which exemplary damages should be awarded, but given that the breach occurred more than 12 months before the tenants’ applications, The Tribunal is barred from making any exemplary damages awards (Refer to s109(2)(b) of the RTA). F. Wallpaper mouldy and peeling off throughout house
The tenants proved they first raised this issue in their email dated 3 March 2022 and in follow up emails on 7 and 10 March 2022.
They say that they mentioned it again on 22 March 2022 when they had their first property inspection as this was the first time, they had met the original property manager. They say they continued to raise this issue at each inspection. However, the property inspection reports don’t make note of them doing so.
The tenants have provided photographs that show black and white mould on the walls during the tenancy and behind the furniture at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have provided medical information that roves the family suffered a lot of respiratory issues during the tenancy that they had not had prior to it.
The tenants have proof they offered to clean and paint these walls if the landlord reimbursed them for the cost of the paint. The owners told them they did not have permission to do this work on the premise and that the owner would address the mould issue.
The tenants photographs from 31 March 2022 and 10 August 2022 show extremely mouldy wall paper in all of the rooms, especially in the joins. The worst room was the bedroom at the back by the kitchen. The tenants say this issue was never addressed during the tenancy.
The landlord stated there are a lot of trees outside that area of the house and that there was no issue, the rooms needed ventilating better and the walls needed to be wiped down by the tenants. Additionally, the landlord said there was no obvious mould coming off the walls when you wiped your hand over it and that any furniture touching the walls would develop mould as the premise was surrounded by trees and there was a lack of sunlight getting into the house.
The tenants say there was a high level of moisture in the house, they tried to ventilate it regularly but could not use the HRV and the windows would not always stay open.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the mould and dampness issues in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period of 98 weeks (4 March 2022 to 19 January 2024) they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having use of the bath, being a rent rebate of $4,900.00.
I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act, for which exemplary damages should be awarded, but given that the breach occurred more than 12 months before the tenants’ applications, The Tribunal is barred from making any exemplary damages awards (Refer to s109(2)(b) of the RTA). G. Ceiling crack and peeling paint in kitchen and dining room
The tenants proved they first raised this issue in their email dated 3 March 2022 and at each property inspection thereafter. They claim it was never addressed.
There is nothing in any of the property inspection reports that proves this claim.
On 2 February 2022, insulation was installed in the ceiling of the main house. The tenants say the roof collapsed a few days later and the landlord sent a contractor to fix the issue a week later, but the contractor never cleaned dup its mess and left insulation fibre for the tenants to clean up. There was no evidence the tenants raised this with the landlord so it could get the contractors back to clean up the mess they left.
On 23 August 2022, the rangehood was installed and the ceiling collapsed again in that area. The tenants notified the landlord. On 24 August 2022, the tenants followed this up with the landlord. The landlord claimed the tenants had made this ceiling hole themselves. There was no evidence to support this assertion. It was fixed about a week later.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, the tenants claim is dismissed. H. Garage key
The tenants have proven there was no key for the garage at the start of the tenancy and the tenants paid to have this lock replaced at $160.00. The landlord has confirmed it agreed to reimburse the tenants for this cost and have not done so.
I am satisfied the landlord owes the tenants $160.00 to reimburse them for the cost of having the lock on the garage replaced and award the tenants that amount of compensation. I. Carpet nails in bedroom
The tenants proved one of their children sustained an injury to his foot from a carpet nail sticking out.
The owners confirmed they visited the premise on 7 March 2022 and fixed this, but stated that if the injury occurred prior to this date, the landlord would reimburse the tenants for the doctor’s visit.
The tenants confirmed the injury occurred around 5 March 2022 and provided a doctor’s receipt for $19.50 for the visit.
I am satisfied the landlord owes the tenants $19.50 to for the doctors visit nd award that sum to the tenants. J. No instructions for sprinkler system outside
The tenants say there were no instructions for the sprinkler system and they raised this issue on 3 March 2022.
The property manager confirms the owner went to the property on 7 March 2022 and told the tenants not to use it.
The property manager says it was not included in the tenancy agreement as a chattel or amenity, and the tenants confirmed to the property manager that they were not concerned about not being able to use this.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, the tenants claim is dismissed. K. Front sleep out bedroom water damage/dampness
The tenants say they have lived with mould and dampness in the sleep out from the beginning of the tenancy and that it became more evident near the end of the tenancy.
As outlined above in paragraphs [26 to 35], at the end of the tenancy the photographs of the sleep out show significant water damage. The carpet is wet and there is mould on the walls of the sleep out that show there had been some sort of leak issue occurring for far longer than 2 weeks before the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims this is from the cracked shower not being reported and also not reported when the hole in the shower tray occurred and potentially still being used after the hole occurred.
The landlord also stated that there were signs of black mould in the hairline cracks that proved the cracks had been there for more than 2 weeks. The tenants reiterated that they had not seen and were not aware of any hairline cracks and none had been picked up by the landlord during any of the property inspections.
The landlord also confirmed that the insurance company had declined the owners claim as the insurer considered this to be gradual process damage that was not covered by its policy. The landlord was not successful in proving the tenants had caused this damage through deliberate or careless acts or omissions.
The tenants stated that on the day they moved into the premise, they sent photographs and videos of the bathroom in the sleepout and highlighted the gaps and unsealed gib that they were concerned would lead to water getting in under the gib to the flooring or further.
The landlord stated there is a liner installed in the shower that does not allow the gib to get wet as the liner is 6 foot in height. The landlord also confirmed the shower is constructed over a concrete floor that can’t sustain water damage. Additionally, the landlord stated there was no rot under the shower tray when the shower was fixed and that if there had ben issues with the gib due to poor workmanship that it would have shown up earlier.
The landlord accepted there was some poor workmanship outside the shower and that these gaps and silicone would not have led to the dampness and mould in the sleep out at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants first email on 3 March 2022 talks about the poor workmanship in the shower but there is no evidence the tenants have raised the mould or dampness issues in the sleepout with the landlord during the tenancy. It also appears that in the 12 October 2023 property inspection report there is no mention of damp carpet or walls or mould and the picture of the shower tray shows no cracks or holes.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, the tenants claim is dismissed. There is no evidence of the dampness or mould being notified to the landlord and the landlord cannot investigate or remedy what is not reported to it. L. Wash house floor
The tenants say the lino was missing under the washer in the laundry and the gib behind the washer was new and not plastered, painted or sanded.
The landlord says the flooring was not soft, there was no risk of the tenants washer falling though the floor and it did not fall through the floor.
The landlord says further, these were cosmetic issues in the laundry that did not lead to any loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience to the tenants.
The tenants did not tell me what loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience they suffered as a result of these issues. Therefore, I dismiss the tenants claim as they suffered no loss and did not raise these issues with the landlord and require them to be addressed during the tenancy. M. Oven
The tenants proved they raised the issue of the oven not turning on and two stove top elements not working in their email to the landlord dated 3 March 2022. They raised it again with the owner on 7 March 2022. The owner showed them how to turn on the oven but could not get the elements to work.
The tenants say the elements were never fixed during the tenancy and no new stove top installed. They claimed they raised this issue at every property inspection. Again this issue is not in the property inspection notes and there had been so many changes in property managers the landlord representatives at the hearing could not confirm or deny whether this issue had been raised by the tenants at the property inspections nor why so many issues that the tenants say they raised were all absent from the inspection reports.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the faulty elements in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $40.00 per week for the period of 98 weeks (4 March 2022 to 19 January 2024) they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having use of these stove top elements, being a rent rebate of $3,920.00.
I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act, for which exemplary damages should be awarded, but given that the breach occurred more than 12 months before the tenants’ applications, The Tribunal is barred from making any exemplary damages awards (Refer to s109(2)(b) of the RTA). N. Rangehood
The tenants claim the rangehood in the kitchen was not working and was making a lot of noise but not sucking out any coking fumes. They say this meant they could not cook as they could not suck out the steam and cooking fumes. They say a new one was installed on 19 August 2022.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. The tenants did not provide any evidence that proves when they raised this issue with the landlord. Therefore, I cannot ascertain whether the landlord installing a new rangehood on 19 August 2022 meant the issue was addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Therefore, the tenants claim is dismissed. O. Washing line
The tenants claim the washing line was unusable from the 4 March 2022 to 24 January 2023, when it was repaired.
The tenants proved they raised the issue of the washing line being loose and would not hold the washing. The tents produced evidence they used the laundromat to dry their clothes because the landlord did not have the washing line fixed after they raised this issue by email on 3,10 and 16 March 2022 and at the 22March 2022 inspection and every other inspection thereafter.
The tenants confirmed the owners tried to tighten it on 7 March 2022 and again on 22 March 2022, but the problem persisted.
The tenants say that at no time until 24 January 2023, did they have full use of the 4 sides of the line. Every side keeps the other side strong and tight and so if they used one side it was drag the other sides loose and it was only when the entire wring was changed that the issue was fixed.
I find the landlord failed to remediate the faulty line in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for the period of 46 weeks 4 days (4 March 2022 to 24 January 2023) they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having use of the full clothesline, being a rent rebate of $920.00.
I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act, for which exemplary damages should be awarded, but given that the breach occurred more than 12 months before the tenants’ applications, The Tribunal is barred from making any exemplary damages awards (Refer to s109(2)(b) of the RTA). P. Batteries for remote to gate
The batteries to the gate remote were not working on move n date and the tenants paid $20.00 to replace them. The landlord has accepted this cost, and it is therefore awarded. Q. Owners belongings still in the garage at the start of the tenancy
The batteries to the gate remote were not working on move n date and the tenants paid $20.00 to replace them. The landlord has accepted this cost, and it is therefore awarded. R. Rubbish that needed removal
The owner’s belongings were still in the garage when the tenants moved in. This meant the tenants had to hire a truck to take some of their personal belongings into storage until they could access the garage.
The tenants were paying for the amenity of the garage and did not have that amenity but sought $545.00 compensation for the truck and storage costs they incurred.
I am satisfied that the tenants incurred this cost for the reason stated above and reimburse the tenants the $545.00 transportation and storage costs incurred. S. Toilet
The tenants complained of a leaky toilet on 3, 6 and 10 March 2022.
The owners got the leaky toilet fixed initially on 7 March 2022. The tenants informed the landlord the toilet was still leaking on 10 March 2022 and asked if it could get a plumber to come and look at it.
The same plumber came back to fix the toilet on 10 march and the landlord says the tenants have not raised this issue again.
I find that the landlord took steps in a reasonable timeframe to investigate and remediate the toilet. However, the tenants could not use this toilet for a week while it was leaking and so award them $240.00 for the loss o2f amenity, stress and inconvenience caused during the week they couldn’t use the toilet. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the rental premise had no working smoke alarms when they moved in, and the landlord left them some smoke alarms on 7 March 2022 and required the tenants to instal these themselves.
A landlord is required to have installed complaint smoke alarms and tested them prior to a tenancy commencing and must record in the tenancy agreement when these alarms are due for replacement, when they were last tested and where they are located. The tenancy agreement records that “the landlord confirms the property complies with s45(1)(ba) in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138 of the RTA. There are two working smoke alarms installed on the premises on each habitable level and within 3 meters of every bedroom”. The tenancy agreement does not state where the two smoke alarms are located, when they expire or when they were last tested. There are no entry inspection photographs that prove these alarms existed and where they were placed in the main house and sleep out. In any case, two smoke alarms would have been insufficient to meet the landlord’s obligations under the RTA.
Smoke alarms must be installed:
within 3 metres of each bedroom door, or in every room where a person sleeps;
in each level or storey of a multi-storey or multi-level home; and
in all rental homes, boarding houses, rental caravans, and self-contained sleep- outs.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premise was fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA in that the landlord has failed to prove that at the time the tenancy commenced there were sufficient or any working smoke alarms in the main house and/or the sleep out. The tenants’ video and photographs from the day the tenancy commenced shows no evidence of any smoke alarms being present.
I find that the tenants should be awarded compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide smoking smoke alarms and award compensation of $750.00 for the breach.
The tenancy commenced on 4 March 2022. The tenants’ application to the Tribunal was made on25 July 2024, more than 12 months after the breach occurred. Therefore, the tenants are statutorily barred from claiming exemplary damages for this breach (Refer to s109(2)(b) of the RTA which places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act). Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: c. 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. d. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. e. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 4 March 2022. Therefore, the landlord had 90 days from the commencement date to comply with all of the healthy homes’ standards, being Thursday, 2 June 2022.
Regardless of whether the landlord met the healthy homes standards by 2 June 2022, the tenants did not raise this claim with the Tribunal until their application on 25 July 2024. That is more than 12 months after the alleged breach. Therefore, s109(2)(b) of the RTA statutorily bars the Tribunal from making any exemplary damage awards for any such breaches. These claims are therefore dismissed as they have not been made in a timeframe that allows any penalties to be made against the landlord. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was: a. The inconvenience of the viewings, photographs being taken for the listing, when the property was put on the market for sale; b. Tradespeople coming in because the house was not provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair and some tradespeople not showing up for arranged appointment times and days when the tenants had taken time off work to be there to get the repair done; c. The sign left outside the property by Harcourts after the property had been removed from the market leading to people coming in off the street constantly enquiring about the property being for sale; and d. Having limited access to the premise while it was for sale;
In this case, I am not of the view that the issues complained of can be deemed to be harassment based on the definitions above. Because I do not consider these issues to be a situation of harassment, exemplary damages cannot be ordered for these claims.
For the reasons set out above, the tenant’ claims for exemplary damages for breach of their quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
However, I do accept the tenants were inconvenienced by the viewings held from 9 September to 17 October 2023 and award the tenants $271.43 compensation for the stress and inconvenience, based on $50 per week for these 5 weeks and 3 days. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants’ tenancy agreement did not contain all the required healthy homes standards information, only a general insulation statement. It did not contain any smoke alarm but did contain insurance information. As such, the tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premises, and whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA. However, the Tribunal is statutorily barred from ordering exemplary damages for this breach. Did the landlord fail to provide the tenants with a written copy of the tenancy agreement prior to the commencement of the tenancy?
[The party] and [The party] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant before the tenancy commenced.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties agreed the tenancy commenced on 4 March 2022.
The tenant confirmed she received an unsigned tenancy agreement on 15 February 2022. The tenants state they asked the landlord to change the children’s ages on the tenancy agreement as they were incorrect.
The tenants proved that on 17 February 2022, they asked the landlord when they would receive a signed copy of the finalised tenancy agreement. The landlord responded informing the tenants it was to carry out a pre-tenancy on 25 February 2022 and would send the finalised tenancy agreement soon.
The tenants proved that on 18 February 2022, they asked the landlord again when they would receive a signed copy of the finalised tenancy agreement.
On 28 February 2022, the tenants emailed the landlord again asking for confirmation of their move in date, what the arrangement was to get the keys and confirming whether the pre-tenancy inspection was to be carried out the next day, as it had been postponed. The landlord responded that the whole office had Covid-19 and were working from home, that the key would be left onsite the next day, that the property manager would carry out the entry inspection on Friday and the property manager would ask the administrator to send out the finalised tenancy agreement to the tenants.
The tenants informed the landlord by email that they would pick up the key on 1 March 2022 so it is not stolen, and they would take photographs of the house before they moved in and would send those to the landlord.
On 3 March 2022, the tenants sent an email to the landlord that outlined all the issues with the property, which were extensive. These issues, no key to the gate and garage, and no entry inspection from the landlord meant they did not move in until 4 March 2022.
On 24 March 2022, the tenants emailed the landlord again asking for a copy of the finalised tenancy agreement. The tenants got an unsigned copy of the tenancy agreement, so on 30 March 2022 they asked again for a finalised and signed copy. They got a response from the landlord saying it would send them a copy the next day. This did not occur.
On 5 April 2022, the tenants emailed the landlord saying they were not comfortable paying rent until they got a signed copy of the finalised tenancy agreement.
The tenants finally got a signed copy of the tenancy agreement on 5 April 2022. I am unsure what date the property manager signed it as there was no date under the property manager’s signature. The landlord says there had been a systems error and the tenants should have received a signed copy of the tenancy agreement the day after they had signed it. However, the tenants had followed up with the landlord numerous times from 17 February 2022 and it took the landlord until 5 April 2022 to investigate why the tenants had not received the finalised copy of the tenancy agreement and address the issue.
I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act, and that unlawful act was intentional because the landlord sent an unsigned copy of the tenancy agreement on 24 March 2022, 20 days after the tenancy had started and then when it was alerted that it had not sent the finalised signed copy, it failed to address this error until 5 April 2022, a full month after the tenancy commenced.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The tenancy commenced on 4 March 2022. The tenants made their application to the Tribunal more than 12 months after the breach occurred. Therefore, I am statutory barred from awarding the tenants exemplary damages for this breach (Refer to s109 (2)(b) of the RTA).
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a compensatory sum of $375.00 because: a. The landlord is an experienced property management company and knows its obligation to ensure that tenants have a signed and finalised copy of their tenancy agreement prior to the tenancy commencing. Although the tenants were provided with a tenancy agreement that they signed before the tenancy commenced, the landlord did not send them a signed copy of the amended tenancy agreement until a month after the tenancy commenced when they had numerous opportunities to investigate why the system had not sent the finalised agreement out and did not take any steps to do so; b. The tenants suffered the stress of having to keep asking for the signed and finalised tenancy agreement and not receiving it; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the breach; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be pay compensation for breaching their obligations to provide tenants with a signed copy of the finalised tenancy agreement before the tenancy commences.

OTHER CLAIMS

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The party], [The party] has substantially succeeded with their claims I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Tbt Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with its claims I have also reimbursed its filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949793 — State of repair at 42A Halsey Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949793 — State of repair at 42A Halsey Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants fail to quite the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER CLAIMS

Property management

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants fail to quite the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER CLAIMS

Property management