What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4975754 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4975754?

Compensation: Maintenance: $3,050.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Plumbers Invoice: $386.12 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,292.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975754?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12322268-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4975754 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4975754?

Compensation: Maintenance: $3,050.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Plumbers Invoice: $386.12 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,292.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975754?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12322268-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

45 Farmer Road, Waitoa 3310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4975754 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4975754 — net $1,143.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,292.86		Rent arrears
Compensation: plumbers invoice		$386.12	plumbers invoice
Compensation: maintenance		$3,050.00	maintenance
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice		$2,000.00	retaliatory notice
Total award	$4,292.86	$5,436.12
Net award		$1,143.26
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,143.26

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4975754 — net $1,143.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,292.86		Rent arrears
Compensation: plumbers invoice		$386.12	plumbers invoice
Compensation: maintenance		$3,050.00	maintenance
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice		$2,000.00	retaliatory notice
Total award	$4,292.86	$5,436.12
Net award		$1,143.26
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,143.26

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Frank van Iersel must pay [The tenant/s] $1,143.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 14 October 2024 together with witnesses and support people. Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal.
Evidence was heard at the first hearing about the landlord’s claim for rent owing and the tenant’s claims that the landlord had given a retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy and did not comply with his maintenance obligations.
A second hearing was scheduled twice and adjourned twice. Both parties supplied new evidence and I made a direction that the tenant should advise the Tribunal when she was ready for the final hearing. The direction was not complied with, so I have decided to issue this order based on the evidence that has been heard. All claims are now finalised. Background
The landlord and tenant met and became friends when they were both living in Whangarei. In about April 2023, the tenant decided she wanted to move to a different city and the landlord said he owned a house in the Waikato which she could rent.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement (the tenant helped the landlord find the Tenancy Services template agreement online) and the landlord helped the tenant to move in (on 15 July 2023) using his truck to bring furniture and animals down. Neither the landlord nor tenant had seen the house before this. 1
The tenant says there were problems with maintenance from the start. The landlord is an electrician and handyman. He stayed at the house on several occasions during this tenancy and did maintenance tasks himself. The tenant says he was not always successful, and some issues dragged on.
The landlord blames the tenant and says she did not allow him reasonable access to fix things properly. The tenant says she made this decision later in the tenancy because of inappropriate texting and behaviour from the landlord.
The tenant sometimes missed rent or paid less than full rent. Texts show she and the landlord communicated about this and, perhaps because of their friendship, the landlord generally told her not to stress about it.
The stressors came to a head in July 2024 resulting in the landlord giving notice to terminate the tenancy and the tenant sending formal notices to fix the maintenance issues. Both parties made these applications to the Tribunal.
The tenant then found somewhere else to live and gave her own notice and moved out.
I now address the claims that have been heard. 1 This is confirmed in text messages between the landlord and tenant. The landlord’s brother had first purchased the house and it was then transferred to the landlord for reasons that are not clear. Rent
The landlord claims payment of rent owing. The tenancy agreement records a start date of 10 July 2023 but in the first hearing it was clarified that the tenant moved in on 15 July 2023. My decision is that this is the start date of the tenancy.
The tenant made her first rent payment on 20 July 2023. The parties agree that her first payment was for $578.00 which is $400.00 for rent and $178.00 for the cost of diesel for the landlord’s vehicle (he helped her move).
The landlord provided both a handwritten and a typed rent ledger. The tenant provided a handwritten summary of this together with her bank statements. The tenant agrees that the landlords handwritten ledger accurately records all her payments.
My decision is that the tenancy ended on 12 September 2024. The landlord said she notified him of this date and that he agreed.
I have calculated the amount of rent owing as $4,292.86. 2
The tenant claims, and the landlord agrees, to reimburse $386.12 she paid for replacing the bathroom basin mixer in April 2024 (a plumbers’ receipt was provided).
I have made these orders. The law on landlord obligations
A landlord has legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
This includes to provide a written and signed tenancy agreement with insurance, insulation, and Healthy Homes Standards compliance statements completed; s13A RTA.
There are also maintenance and compliance obligations in s45 RTA to:- a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; c. comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (including insulation requirements) within 90 days of any new, or renewed, tenancy that commences on a date between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022 or within 120 days if the tenancy commences after 27 August 2022, 2 Tenancy start date 15 July 2023 to end date 12 September 2024 is 60 weeks and 6 days at $400 per week = total rent due of $24,342.86. Total rent payments = $20,050.00. Total due $24,342.86 – total paid $20,050 = $4,292.86. d. comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; and e. 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 RTA.
The tenant says there were no working smoke alarms in the house however there was no evidence to prove this claim, so it is dismissed.
The tenant says the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord’s version of what happened was that the tenant would not easily let him access the property to do repairs. He described occasions when he would ask about coming down and she would respond to say that if he did so she would contact the police. His final comment was that he did say to the tenant that if he could not fix the house then he would have to sell it as he did not see any other option.
After reviewing the texts, photographs and videos provided in evidence, my decision is that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to reasonably maintain the premises.
The evidence proves:- a. There was a problem with water pressure and the mixing of hot and cold water for at least 3 months from the start of the tenancy. The landlord did take steps to fix this (replacing parts and asking a friend to install them) and he explained that the water supply is part of a private scheme from the nearby dairy factory. However, the end result was a lack of safe hot water for the household over this time. b. At least some of the windows and doors were failing (unable to be opened and closed properly and probably allowing water into the framing and interior of the house), and the exterior of the house is poorly maintained. The tenant’s photographs show that many of the wooden weatherboards and window frames are missing paint and are rotting. A section of framing under the eaves of the roof has fallen off. Texts from the tenant report ongoing problems with windows from August 2023 through until the end of the tenancy. These include that the lounge window won’t close, and water is coming in, that a window in a bedroom the landlord broke when he was trying to fix the frame is letting draughts in, that most windows need fixing as some can’t open and others are almost falling out, and that parts of window frames are coming off as they are rotten. The landlord mentions needing to try to find replacement windows or to make these himself but there is no evidence he did so. The tenant also describes problems with various interior doors not fitting properly and the landlord suggests putting up a blanket and that the house may be shifting. c. That there is probably a leak into the roof and through the bathroom ceiling. In October 2023, the tenant reports that a piece of roof has come off and that there is a dripping sound inside the wall in the bathroom when it rains. On 30 December 2023, she tells the landlord the roof leaks in the bathroom and again in March 2024 when she tries to find a contractor but reports to the landlord, they will not give a quote, only come to do the work. In June and July 2024, she raises this again saying the bathroom ceiling has water bubbles and that the mould in there is very bad and that by the back door the roof is wet and mouldy. Photographs show mould patches over most of the wooden bathroom ceiling. d. The oven had problems with elements and baking. It is not clear how long this was an issue. The landlord says he replaced the thermostat although there is no evidence to show when (such as a receipt). e. The front gate would not stay shut and photos show the wood has rotted away. f. That rainwater pools on parts of the section and that downpipes from the detached garage do not discharge properly into a stormwater drain or soak hole but instead into a makeshift arrangement of large blue plastic drums. The garage is about 10 metres from the house. The evidence is not clear enough to say this is contributing to issues in the house itself, but I note that it will not be helping subsidence or damp.
The tenant seeks compensation for the maintenance issues.
She says she provided food and coffee for the landlord over about 12 days that he stayed with her while doing maintenance. I have decided not to award compensation for food because there is not enough information for me to assess the value of this or whether the arrangement was related to their friendship at the time.
Instead, I assess compensation as a reduction of rent. I accept the tenant’s claim that this house was cold and damp. The evidence shows this was probably because of the rotting windows and a probable leak into the roof. It was this way for nearly all the tenancy. The tenancy was 61 weeks long. I reduce the rent by $50.00 per week which is a total of $3,050.00.
If a landlord intentionally does not fulfil their maintenance responsibilities, the Tribunal can award exemplary damages, which are like a fine. The purpose is to punish and deter.
My decision is that this breach is intentional because the landlord let the issues go on too long. It is no excuse for him to say he did not know the condition of the house and could not afford to pay others to repair the house. All landlords must provide a reasonably maintained house that complies with the Healthy Homes Standards. It is as simple as that. If a landlord truly cannot afford to do repairs, then they must not rent out property.
Neither can the landlord say that the tenant would not let him come to do repairs. In fact, she agreed to him staying in the house and fed him while he did so. She also tried to help him by picking up parts for repairs locally and making her own enquiries about affordable tradespeople.
The tenant did later refuse to allow the landlord to come to the property. This does not justify his failure to maintain the premises. In fact, her objection to his presence is understandable in light of the many texts he sent [redacted information]. The second hearing was not held so I have not made a decision relating to a breach of privacy or harassment, but the texts explain the tenant’s decision.
I see the landlord’s breach of his maintenance obligations as intentional but do not award exemplary damages because my assessment is that the compensation awarded is sufficient for the issues proven. This does not minimise the situation. The tenant suffered poor living conditions and the landlord’s excuses are inadequate.
I make mention of two other matters. The landlord did not complete the Healthy Homes compliance statement on the tenancy agreement. He said he is not good at paperwork.
Neither did he supply evidence to prove that the house is insulated, that the bathroom and kitchen had extractor fans that worked, or that heating was supplied for the main living room. These are all requirements under the Healthy Homes Standards. There are other requirements too such as draught stopping and drainage.
The tenant did not specifically raise these as claims, so I have not made decisions about them. I mention them so that the landlord is on notice that he must check all of these matters and provide full compliance statements if he rents out these premises. To not do so is unlawful and exemplary damages (fines) may apply. Retaliatory notice
The tenant says that the landlord gave her notice to terminate the tenancy in retaliation for her giving him notice to fix maintenance issues at the house.
The landlord disputes this. He says he had decided to sell the house and that was the reason for the termination notice.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s notice of termination is dated 28 July 2024 and states the tenancy ends on 31 October 2024. The tenant sent formal 14-day notices to fix maintenance issues dated 25 July 2024.
The landlord does not use email, so all notices were posted. The landlord says he had not yet received the tenant’s notices when he posted his notice of termination. There is no evidence to show when any of the notices were posted and the parties cannot exactly recall.
I accept that the landlord’s notice of termination may have been posted before the tenant’s formal notices.
However, the formal written notices are not the only records. The landlord and tenant communicated mostly by text.
Several pages of texts were supplied which evidence a conversation between them on 20 July 2024 over several hours. The exact sequence of the messages is not clear, but the context of the conversation is.
In the texts, the tenant tells the landlord that the bathroom ceiling seems to be leaking, the mould was very bad, and she’d had to throw things out because of it. She also says the chimneys need cleaning for safety before using them.
The landlord then asks why the tenant did not reply to his calls and texts when he contacted her about coming to the property in April. The tenant replies that she does not have to, and that she should have called the police.
There is then a series of messages: Tenant: You want your unquifed friends to do work in the house. See you in court Landlord: Expect a 90 day notice. I done nothing but try to help you. Well you can tell your kids that you are moving. Plus I was not going to sell the house. But now you give me no option. This in An official notice as from today. You get a written one in the post. I don’t want to do this but you giving me no choice. And you be getting bill for all the week’s you short paid Tenant: You have to do in writing. You will be getting a bill for everything that you done to as etc. I win in court. The house isn’t up to code etc
My decision is that the tenant has proved that the landlord was motivated to give her notice to terminate the tenancy partly because she continued to raise maintenance issues with him and said she would “see him in court”.
The tenant is exercising a legitimate legal right and duty to raise maintenance issues and the need for repairs with a landlord. A tenant also has the right to apply to the Tribunal to enforce their rights.
The landlord himself says in his texts that he had decided not to sell the house but she had given him no choice. The landlord has acted in response to her.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s notice of termination is retaliatory. This is an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I now consider these factors. The effect of the notice of termination was to cause the tenant and her daughters to have to find another place to live. The interests of the tenant are that she be able to raise legitimate maintenance issues and not lose the security of a home because of it. The public interest in this is high. A landlord is operating a business and must not make decisions about at tenancy for retaliatory reasons. I do consider it just to award exemplary damages. I award $2,000.00. Suppression of name
Both parties have been successful in their claims. They both seek suppression of name.
I suppress the tenant’s name as although she owes rent, she has also suffered from the landlord’s actions and has raised personal issues meaning that her privacy should be protected. Her interests outweigh the public interest.
I do not suppress the landlord’s name. The proven breaches are significant. There is a public interest in the address of the premises so that others can check the status of maintenance and Healthy Homes compliance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975754 — Exemplary damages at 45 Farmer Road, Waitoa 3310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975754 — Exemplary damages at 45 Farmer Road, Waitoa 3310

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions