What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4990208 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant]’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4990208?

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 4990208?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4990208 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant]’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4990208?

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 4990208?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

316 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4990208 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

316 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4990208 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Order

[The tenant]’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Taylor Property Services Limited as agent for Yong Qian Chen and Yong Qian Chen must pay [the tenant] $7,859.53 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Adela Hu attended the hearing the hearing for the owner’s property management company.
The tenant attended in person.
The landlord applies for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair, unlawfully entered in the premises, reimbursement for power, compensation for damaged carpet, and reimbursement for moving the landlord’s goods. Background
The tenancy began on 8 September 2016 and ended eight years later on 29 September 2024.
The house was old and rundown from the beginning of the tenancy. The principal landlord bought the premises as an investment property mainly because it has a generously large section.
Ms Hu acknowledges that the quality of the property was at the lower end of the rental market but submits the landlord has always consistently maintained the premises to an acceptable standard and charged a proportionately modest rent.
The tenant submits that the property fell below appropriate standards. After the Auckland Anniversary Weekend and Cyclone Gabrielle floods of late January 2023 and early February the house became intolerably bad. In particular, the front door frame rotted out leaving excessive gaps, the guttering was clogged, and three broken windows were not repaired. Water leaked in and the house was damp and unhealthy.
The tenant says the house continued to deteriorate to such an extent that on 19 August 2024, the 19 August 2024, Council issued an Insanitary Building Notice. In its covering letter, Council stated: Inspection of the site founds several broken windows, damaged guttering, and a rotten external door frame which is allowing water to enter the building.
During the tenancy, the landlord installed a moisture barrier. The tenant moved property from the basement to enable the installation. She says the landlord had agreed to pay her for that but has not done so.
The house’s basement had a tendency to flood. There was an electric pump which was activated to pump out excess water. The landlord did not have a separate source of electricity for the pump, so it ran off the tenant’s power circuit, which the tenant paid for.
The issues that the Tribunal must decide are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? b. Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises? c.Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for work she did? d. Should the landlord compensate the tenant for using her power?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, 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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 3 Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 4 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation: “...the musty smell and the generally deteriorating condition of the lower level would have indicated to a reasonably competent person inspection the dwelling with reasonable frequency – or indeed at any time over, or immediately preceding, the tenancy, the water leakage or seepage (whatever the cause/s) was significant, if not a distinctly widespread problem.” Discussion
The landlord acknowledges the property was only in a fair condition. Ms Hu says the rent charged reflected the property’s condition. She submits because of the property’s 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 3 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) s 40(1)(d). 4 Per n 1. Footnotes omitted. condition the landlord frequently repaired the house as problems presented themselves.
The fact that Council issued an Unsanitary Building Notice incontrovertibly proves that the house’s condition deteriorated to an unacceptably poor standard.
The tenant points to the 2023 the massive rainfall events in Auckland in about late January 2023, as a point in time when the condition of the house became worsened.
The landlord carried out regular inspections and was aware of the house’s disrepair.
The condition of the house was always marginal. I find it more probable than not that a tipping point was reached in early 2023 where the landlord’s maintenance efforts significantly lagged behind what was required and the property’s condition was palpably below a reasonable state of repair.
It follows, I find it proven that the landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair. Remedies
The tenant suffered loss of amenity in the premises from dampness and cold entering the premises through the front door and broken windows.
I calculate the tenant’s loss of amenity at 15 percent of the weekly rent from 1 February 2023 to the end of the tenancy.
The total amount is
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA, namely: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c.The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of s 45(1)(b) is $7,200.00.
The landlord’s intent was to generate income from an investment property by maintaining the house at a marginal condition. The effect of the breach was that the tenant lived in substandard conditions, culminating in Council issuing an Insanitary Building Notice.
It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages that vindicate her harm. It is in the public interest to deter landlords from failing to maintain their premises to a reasonable standard by ordering exemplary damages in appropriate cases. I consider it is just to make an award.
That Council had to issue an Insanitary Building Notice highlights the house’s unacceptable decay. A residential home should never be allowed to fall to such an abysmal state of repair. An owner is entitled to have a commercial motive in purchasing real estate and to rent out a house that will likely be demolished before long, but it must ensure that home remains habitable at a decent level of societal expectation.
It is apposite to set exemplary damages at 50 percent of the maximum in this case.
The Tribunal orders exemplary damages of $3,600.00.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

The tenant alleged the landlord unlawfully entered the premises.
She says she had a video of the unlawful entry, but it was not submitted in evidence prior to the hearing, and she could not find it on her phone today.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, or maintenance. 5
This claim is dismissed for want of evidence.

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for work she did?

The tenant says the property manager agreed to reimburse her for her time to remove the landlord’s belongings from the basement so a moisture barrier could be installed.
The tenant submitted an email from the property manager dated 10 May 2021 saying: Yes please , we can pay your a bit money for removing the owner’s stuff
It is more likely than not that there was a contract for the tenant to move the landlord’s belongings in consideration of payment.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $200.00 for the work.

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for using her power?

The premises had a pump to eliminate water from the basement. The pump’s role was for maintenance which is a landlord responsibility.
The pump ran off the tenant’s electrical circuit, so she paid for the power the pump used. 5 See s 48(1),(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I order the landlord to reimburse the landlord $333.00 for the power the tenant paid towards the pump’s operation. Other – damaged carpet
The tenant claimed for the loss of a second-had carpet that was damaged when the basement flooded.
The carpet was second-hand. The tenant had no proof of its value.
The claim cannot succeed. It is dismissed. Non-publication
The tenant asks for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6
The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider than publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
It follows, the Tribunal must order non-publication as requested.

Order

[The tenant]’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Taylor Property Services Limited as agent for Yong Qian Chen and Yong Qian Chen must pay [the tenant] $7,859.53 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Adela Hu attended the hearing the hearing for the owner’s property management company.
The tenant attended in person.
The landlord applies for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair, unlawfully entered in the premises, reimbursement for power, compensation for damaged carpet, and reimbursement for moving the landlord’s goods. Background
The tenancy began on 8 September 2016 and ended eight years later on 29 September 2024.
The house was old and rundown from the beginning of the tenancy. The principal landlord bought the premises as an investment property mainly because it has a generously large section.
Ms Hu acknowledges that the quality of the property was at the lower end of the rental market but submits the landlord has always consistently maintained the premises to an acceptable standard and charged a proportionately modest rent.
The tenant submits that the property fell below appropriate standards. After the Auckland Anniversary Weekend and Cyclone Gabrielle floods of late January 2023 and early February the house became intolerably bad. In particular, the front door frame rotted out leaving excessive gaps, the guttering was clogged, and three broken windows were not repaired. Water leaked in and the house was damp and unhealthy.
The tenant says the house continued to deteriorate to such an extent that on 19 August 2024, the 19 August 2024, Council issued an Insanitary Building Notice. In its covering letter, Council stated: Inspection of the site founds several broken windows, damaged guttering, and a rotten external door frame which is allowing water to enter the building.
During the tenancy, the landlord installed a moisture barrier. The tenant moved property from the basement to enable the installation. She says the landlord had agreed to pay her for that but has not done so.
The house’s basement had a tendency to flood. There was an electric pump which was activated to pump out excess water. The landlord did not have a separate source of electricity for the pump, so it ran off the tenant’s power circuit, which the tenant paid for.
The issues that the Tribunal must decide are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? b. Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises? c.Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for work she did? d. Should the landlord compensate the tenant for using her power?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, 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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 3 Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 4 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation: “...the musty smell and the generally deteriorating condition of the lower level would have indicated to a reasonably competent person inspection the dwelling with reasonable frequency – or indeed at any time over, or immediately preceding, the tenancy, the water leakage or seepage (whatever the cause/s) was significant, if not a distinctly widespread problem.” Discussion
The landlord acknowledges the property was only in a fair condition. Ms Hu says the rent charged reflected the property’s condition. She submits because of the property’s 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 3 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) s 40(1)(d). 4 Per n 1. Footnotes omitted. condition the landlord frequently repaired the house as problems presented themselves.
The fact that Council issued an Unsanitary Building Notice incontrovertibly proves that the house’s condition deteriorated to an unacceptably poor standard.
The tenant points to the 2023 the massive rainfall events in Auckland in about late January 2023, as a point in time when the condition of the house became worsened.
The landlord carried out regular inspections and was aware of the house’s disrepair.
The condition of the house was always marginal. I find it more probable than not that a tipping point was reached in early 2023 where the landlord’s maintenance efforts significantly lagged behind what was required and the property’s condition was palpably below a reasonable state of repair.
It follows, I find it proven that the landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair. Remedies
The tenant suffered loss of amenity in the premises from dampness and cold entering the premises through the front door and broken windows.
I calculate the tenant’s loss of amenity at 15 percent of the weekly rent from 1 February 2023 to the end of the tenancy.
The total amount is
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA, namely: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c.The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of s 45(1)(b) is $7,200.00.
The landlord’s intent was to generate income from an investment property by maintaining the house at a marginal condition. The effect of the breach was that the tenant lived in substandard conditions, culminating in Council issuing an Insanitary Building Notice.
It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages that vindicate her harm. It is in the public interest to deter landlords from failing to maintain their premises to a reasonable standard by ordering exemplary damages in appropriate cases. I consider it is just to make an award.
That Council had to issue an Insanitary Building Notice highlights the house’s unacceptable decay. A residential home should never be allowed to fall to such an abysmal state of repair. An owner is entitled to have a commercial motive in purchasing real estate and to rent out a house that will likely be demolished before long, but it must ensure that home remains habitable at a decent level of societal expectation.
It is apposite to set exemplary damages at 50 percent of the maximum in this case.
The Tribunal orders exemplary damages of $3,600.00.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

The tenant alleged the landlord unlawfully entered the premises.
She says she had a video of the unlawful entry, but it was not submitted in evidence prior to the hearing, and she could not find it on her phone today.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, or maintenance. 5
This claim is dismissed for want of evidence.

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for work she did?

The tenant says the property manager agreed to reimburse her for her time to remove the landlord’s belongings from the basement so a moisture barrier could be installed.
The tenant submitted an email from the property manager dated 10 May 2021 saying: Yes please , we can pay your a bit money for removing the owner’s stuff
It is more likely than not that there was a contract for the tenant to move the landlord’s belongings in consideration of payment.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $200.00 for the work.

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for using her power?

The premises had a pump to eliminate water from the basement. The pump’s role was for maintenance which is a landlord responsibility.
The pump ran off the tenant’s electrical circuit, so she paid for the power the pump used. 5 See s 48(1),(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I order the landlord to reimburse the landlord $333.00 for the power the tenant paid towards the pump’s operation. Other – damaged carpet
The tenant claimed for the loss of a second-had carpet that was damaged when the basement flooded.
The carpet was second-hand. The tenant had no proof of its value.
The claim cannot succeed. It is dismissed. Non-publication
The tenant asks for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6
The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider than publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
It follows, the Tribunal must order non-publication as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990208 — State of repair at 316 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990208 — State of repair at 316 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for work she did?

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for using her power?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for work she did?

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for using her power?