How much money was awarded in case 4980149?

Compensation: Air BNB Costs: $466.72 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4980149?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11471047-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4980149?

Compensation: Air BNB Costs: $466.72 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4980149?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11471047-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

772A West Coast Road, Oratia, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4980149 — State of repair

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4980149 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4980149 — net $2,693.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Air BNB costs	$466.72	Air BNB costs
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,200.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Bond lodgement	$200.00	Bond lodgement
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint agent	$400.00	Failure to appoint agent
Exemplary damages: Interference with services	$400.00	Interference with services
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,693.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,693.72

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

Anna Mertens and Axel Mertens must pay [The tenant/s] $2,693.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Anna Mertens and Axel Mertens must pay [The tenant/s] $2,693.72 immediately.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy began on 11 September 2023 and ended on 29 September 2024 after the landlord gave 90 days’ notice.

The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Loss of amenity

During the tenancy the tenant notified the landlord that there was water in the bedroom coming from the bathroom. The landlord employed a plumber who recommended that a tiler carry out repairs. The tiler had to regrout the tiles in the bathroom. The landlord said that the tiler recommended that the grout would need two to three days to properly dry and during that time the tenants could not use the only bathroom in the residence.

The landlord offered for the tenants to use their bathroom which is next door. The tenant did not accept that offer which they are entitled to do as they have paid rent for their own exclusive bathroom. The landlord did not offer any rent relief during the repairs to the bathroom.

Due to a loss of amenity, I consider that the tenants are entitled to be compensated for the cost of staying at an Air BNB. That amount is awarded. Failure to maintain

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord did not investigate the cause of mould in the premises or ensure that there were sufficient working smoke alarms at the beginning of the tenancy. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant said that they noticed the mould soon after moving in. After a month of cleaning the mould and running the dehumidifier the tenants raised the issue with the landlord. The landlord suggested that the tenant run the heater all day in addition to the dehumidifier.

The landlord came to look at the premises and the tenant said they identified that the floor in the second bedroom was damp, but nothing was done. The tenant produced photographs showing mould growth on the walls, belongings and clothing. The tenant had health issues which they attribute to the damp and mouldy living conditions. The tenant identified a bug infestation on the area where there was mould.

The landlord acknowledged that there was mould growth at the premises which they described as two patches measuring 25cm x 35cm. The landlord said that when the tenant mentioned the mould, they offered to clean it and reimburse the tenant for cleaning products.

What the landlord did not do was investigate the cause of the mould or carry out repairs to prevent continued mould growth.

In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/089/2002, it was said: “A tenant must also tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken. The landlord is also required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as bad construction or water lying under the premises, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this can not be done then it is the landlord problem. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is available, then it is the tenant’s problem.”

In relation to the smoke alarms, the tenant obtained a Healthy Homes assessment in August 2024. That assessment included an assessment of the smoke alarms at the premises. The assessment states that an alarm is not installed on storey 1 of the property and an alarm is not installed within 3m of bedroom 1.

The landlord acknowledged that the premises did not comply in relation to smoke alarms but said that it was due to an oversight. The landlord said that the previous tenant had removed the smoke alarm and placed it in a cupboard, and they failed to notice this.

I note that the section in the tenancy agreement relating to smoke alarms was not completed by the landlord. The agreement clearly sets out the rules in relation to smoke alarms. If the landlord had completed the tenancy agreement this oversight may have been avoided.

Both issues have put the health and safety of the tenants at risk. The landlord was aware of the presence of mould in the premises and that there were moisture issues which could have been the cause of the mould growth. But the landlord failed to carry out professional investigations. The landlord was aware of the need to have smoke alarms but did not ensure that the premises complied before the tenancy commenced.

It is in the public interest for landlords to maintain premises and comply in relation to smoke alarms. I consider that an award of $1,200.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Failure to appoint agent

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.

A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant has explained why they believed the landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days. The landlord acknowledged that they had travelled to South Africa from 1 February 2024 until mid-March 2024. That period is more than 21 days. The landlord said that she appointed her son in law as an agent, but the tenant was not aware of this, and no contact details were provided for the agent to the tenant. As the landlord has not appointed an agent in accordance with the Act, 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 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 tenant was instructed to contact the landlord if there were any issues while they were overseas. An urgent issue did arise in relation to the septic tank and an alarm that was triggered. The tenant phoned the landlord who phoned her son in law to arrange repairs. While the landlord was able to respond to this issue it does demonstrate the importance of appointing an agent when overseas as the problem occurred at 1pm in the afternoon, which is 2am in South Africa.

It seems that the landlord was aware of the need to appoint an agent as she said that she appointed her son in law, but she did not go far enough in that she did not advise the tenant and did not provide the tenant with contact details which is required by section 16A(4) and (4A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I consider that an award of $400.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Bond lodgement

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord did not lodge the bond within the statutory timeframe. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

The tenants paid the bond to the landlord on 10 September 2023. The landlord did not lodge the bond and then went overseas. The tenant arranged for the forms to be signed and the landlord gave the tenant the bond to send to the Bond Centre on 7 April 2024. The bond was not lodged for the first seven months of the tenancy. The onus is on the landlord to arrange to lodge the bond but instead in this situation the tenant did so.

The landlord has had five previous tenants and said that this is the first time that the bond was not lodged. The landlord also said that the bond was not lodged because of a problem with the previous tenant. This excuse is not a reason not to lodge the bond.

The bond was returned to the tenant at the end of the tenancy but the tenant should not have been the one to lodge the bond. In the circumstances I consider that an award of $200.00 is reasonable. Interference with services

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by turning off the WIFI when it had been agreed at the beginning of the tenancy that the tenant could use the landlord’s WIFI.

A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant said that there were multiple occasions where the landlord would turn the WIFI off when they left their home. This impacted on the tenant as she worked from home and did not have internet during these periods.

The landlord said that they had noticed problems with the internet. They spoke with the tenant, but the situation did not improve. The landlord said that the WIFI was turned off to reboot it and it was acknowledged that the WIFI was turned off when they left the home but only on one occasion.

I do not accept the landlord turned the WIFI off on only one occasion. The landlord has interfered with the WIFI service. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

The landlord was aware that the tenant worked from home and required internet access for that work. The landlord had agreed to provide connection to their WIFI and then during the tenancy interfered with that service. This has impacted on the tenant’s work.

It is important that landlord’s do not interfere with services such as internet. In the circumstances I consider that an award of $400.00 is reasonable. Healthy Homes claim

The tenant claimed in respect of the Healthy Homes standards.

The landlord obtained a Healthy Homes report dated 19 November 2020. That report recorded that at the time the home was not compliant in relation to roof insulation and kitchen ventilation.

At the hearing the landlord provided proof that the roof insulation issue was rectified in December 2020. The tenant acknowledged that there was kitchen ventilation present during the tenancy.

This means that as far as the landlord was aware the premises, except for the smoke alarms, was compliant with the Healthy Homes standards.

The tenant obtained an independent Healthy Homes assessment in August 2024 because they thought that there may be issues contributing to the mould. The assessment identified noncompliance with the bathroom ventilation and the smoke alarms.

I have made an award in relation to the smoke alarms above. For the bathroom ventilation the landlord produced evidence from a professional stating that there were no issues with the bathroom ventilation. Given the conflicting evidence I am not confident that there was noncompliance in relation to the bathroom ventilation.

For this reason, I am unable to make any award for the tenant’s claim in relation to the Healthy Homes standards. That claim is dismissed.

In relation to the tenant’s other claims there was insufficient evidence to make an award.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason an order is made suppressing the tenant’s names.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4980149 — net $2,693.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Air BNB costs	$466.72	Air BNB costs
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,200.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Bond lodgement	$200.00	Bond lodgement
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint agent	$400.00	Failure to appoint agent
Exemplary damages: Interference with services	$400.00	Interference with services
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,693.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,693.72