What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5001288 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 5001288?

Compensation: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Curtains: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001288?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11137215-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5001288 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 5001288?

Compensation: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Curtains: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001288?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11137215-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5001288 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001288 — net $2,677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation Garage	$1,200.00	Compensation Garage
Compensation patio	$200.00	Compensation patio
Curtains	$250.00	Curtains
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,677.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,677.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
JOC Investments Ltd must pay [the teannts] $2,677.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing. Ms Ranger attended for the landlord.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the landlord’s obligations relating to the condition of the premises.
They also sought to be released early from the fixed term tenancy. That was resolved by consent of the parties and the Tribunal has already made an order giving effect to the parties’ agreement. The Tribunal has since been informed that the tenancy will end on 28 November. Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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. Background
The landlord owns a group of four town houses of which the premises are one. The tenants viewed two of them and preferred one of the other houses. It seems that having viewed that house, they had only a cursory look at the premises, and they assumed that it was much the same as the other one.
They were offered the premises and not the one that they preferred because the landlord did not want the tenant’s dog in the other house. It turns out that the two houses were different in some respects and the tenants were unhappy that the premises were not in the same condition as the one they preferred. They suggested that the landlord should have pointed out the differences to them.
One difference was that the premises had the laundry, a washing machine and drier, in the basement garage of the premises rather than in the kitchen of the premises. As well, the other premises had recently been redecorated and the chattels were better quality.
The laundry in the garage was problematic for the tenants because the garage was not watertight. Water leaked into it from the courtyard above.
I find that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. The landlord disputed it, but it is apparent from the report following the inspection when the previous ended, that there were areas that were not up to the required standard.
The tenants are claiming compensation in relation to the laundry situation, among other things. The claims are set out below. Cleanliness
The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that the premises were not provided to them in a reasonably clean state. The tenants’ also produced photographs to prove that.
The landlord got in a cleaner straightaway and remedied the situation. The tenants moved in after the premises were cleaned.
Given that and the fact that the breach is at the lower end of the scale, I find that no award of compensation or exemplary damages is warranted. Basement
The landlord accepts that the basement car parking area leaks. It seems that this is a consequence of unrepaired earthquake damage. Water enters the garage from the courtyard and garden area above the garage. It would be an expensive job to prevent the water ingress and the landlord has chosen not to remedy the situation.
I find that the tenants were entitled to expect the garage to be watertight. The tenants were not told that it leaked, despite the landlord being aware of it.
The tenants were not able to use the garage to park their cars because with the water leaking into the garage, came minerals that are corrosive. The landlord offered the tenants car covers, but they chose to park their cars on the road, which I find to be reasonable.
Also within the garage are a washer and dryer. The tenants therefore needed to go into the garage, (there is no internal access), to do their laundry. They chose not to do so partly because it was unpleasant, but I gather mainly because they were concerned about the electrical safety of using the washing machine and the drier with the water ingress.
I can understand the tenants’ concerns about electrical safety but the only independent professional evidence about that has come from the landlord’s electrician who states that there is no risk of electrocution from using the alliances. I accept that, but I also accept that the tenants should not have had to do their laundry is a damp leaking garage.
The tenants have largely been denied the use of the garage and so I agree with them that they should be compensated for that loss. I did not receive any evidence about the value of the garage, so I must rely on my own experience and judgment. I find that the value of the garage is approximately $50 per week. I therefore award $1,000 compensation for the condition of the garage.
Despite my finding that the washing machine and drier were usable, the conditions in the garage were unpleasant and they should not have been so. I make no award in respect of the cost of using a laundromat, but I award $200 for the unsatisfactory laundry arrangements. Patio
There is also a problem with drainage of water from the patio. That resulted in rainwater pooling on it and that made it unusable when that was the case.
I accept that one would not usually use the patio when it was raining but the water would have remained for some time after it rained, and the situation was unsightly. The tenants were entitled to have a patio that drained efficiently.
A modest award of compensation is justified, and I award $200. Chattels
The tenancy agreement listed the chattels to be provided and it included curtains. But there were no curtains. Ms Ranger said that the inclusion of curtains in the list was a mistake. She pointed out that there were blinds and shutters which performed the same function.
I accept that her point is correct, to an extent. But blinds and shutters do not have the same insulating properties as curtains. The tenants complained about the difficulty of heating the premises and the amount of their power bills.
The tenants were entitled to expect the chattels that were listed in the chattels list to be provided with the premises. I therefore award $250 for the absence of curtains.
I find that the tenants had their own requirements and standards regarding the furniture and linen that they wanted in the premises. Some of the furniture and bedding that the landlord provided did not meet the tenants’ expectations. But overall, I do not find that an award of compensation is warranted for the tenants’ decision to buy some items to replace those provided by the landlord. The furniture and bedding provided were usable. The tenants also of course now have the benefit of those items. Exemplary Damages
The tenants experienced other problems during the tenancy and the landlord responded to their complaints. The tenants assert that the landlord “deceived” them by failing to bring to their attention the defects that existed from the beginning of the tenancy and generally that the quality of the premises was significantly lower than the other house they looked at.
I don’t accept there was deception. The tenants could have inspected the premises thoroughly and satisfied themselves about its condition. But that said, I find that the premises were not provided to the tenants in a reasonable state of repair. If the landlords had been proactive to bring the defects to the tenants’ attention, they could at least have made an informed decision about accepting them.
The landlord knew about the defects, and it is no answer for them to say that the premises suffered from these defects and that it was out of the landlord’s control. If it was out of the landlord’s control, and I doubt that it was, then the landlord had an obligation to disclose the situation to the tenants before granting them the tenancy.
I find, therefore, that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the premises to the tenants in a reasonable state of repair and that an award of exemplary damages is required. I have awarded compensation separately and so the award is essentially a penalty. An award of $1,000 is appropriate. Filing Fee
The tenants have had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason I have granted the tenants name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001288 — net $2,677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation Garage	$1,200.00	Compensation Garage
Compensation patio	$200.00	Compensation patio
Curtains	$250.00	Curtains
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,677.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,677.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
JOC Investments Ltd must pay [the teannts] $2,677.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing. Ms Ranger attended for the landlord.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the landlord’s obligations relating to the condition of the premises.
They also sought to be released early from the fixed term tenancy. That was resolved by consent of the parties and the Tribunal has already made an order giving effect to the parties’ agreement. The Tribunal has since been informed that the tenancy will end on 28 November. Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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. Background
The landlord owns a group of four town houses of which the premises are one. The tenants viewed two of them and preferred one of the other houses. It seems that having viewed that house, they had only a cursory look at the premises, and they assumed that it was much the same as the other one.
They were offered the premises and not the one that they preferred because the landlord did not want the tenant’s dog in the other house. It turns out that the two houses were different in some respects and the tenants were unhappy that the premises were not in the same condition as the one they preferred. They suggested that the landlord should have pointed out the differences to them.
One difference was that the premises had the laundry, a washing machine and drier, in the basement garage of the premises rather than in the kitchen of the premises. As well, the other premises had recently been redecorated and the chattels were better quality.
The laundry in the garage was problematic for the tenants because the garage was not watertight. Water leaked into it from the courtyard above.
I find that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. The landlord disputed it, but it is apparent from the report following the inspection when the previous ended, that there were areas that were not up to the required standard.
The tenants are claiming compensation in relation to the laundry situation, among other things. The claims are set out below. Cleanliness
The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that the premises were not provided to them in a reasonably clean state. The tenants’ also produced photographs to prove that.
The landlord got in a cleaner straightaway and remedied the situation. The tenants moved in after the premises were cleaned.
Given that and the fact that the breach is at the lower end of the scale, I find that no award of compensation or exemplary damages is warranted. Basement
The landlord accepts that the basement car parking area leaks. It seems that this is a consequence of unrepaired earthquake damage. Water enters the garage from the courtyard and garden area above the garage. It would be an expensive job to prevent the water ingress and the landlord has chosen not to remedy the situation.
I find that the tenants were entitled to expect the garage to be watertight. The tenants were not told that it leaked, despite the landlord being aware of it.
The tenants were not able to use the garage to park their cars because with the water leaking into the garage, came minerals that are corrosive. The landlord offered the tenants car covers, but they chose to park their cars on the road, which I find to be reasonable.
Also within the garage are a washer and dryer. The tenants therefore needed to go into the garage, (there is no internal access), to do their laundry. They chose not to do so partly because it was unpleasant, but I gather mainly because they were concerned about the electrical safety of using the washing machine and the drier with the water ingress.
I can understand the tenants’ concerns about electrical safety but the only independent professional evidence about that has come from the landlord’s electrician who states that there is no risk of electrocution from using the alliances. I accept that, but I also accept that the tenants should not have had to do their laundry is a damp leaking garage.
The tenants have largely been denied the use of the garage and so I agree with them that they should be compensated for that loss. I did not receive any evidence about the value of the garage, so I must rely on my own experience and judgment. I find that the value of the garage is approximately $50 per week. I therefore award $1,000 compensation for the condition of the garage.
Despite my finding that the washing machine and drier were usable, the conditions in the garage were unpleasant and they should not have been so. I make no award in respect of the cost of using a laundromat, but I award $200 for the unsatisfactory laundry arrangements. Patio
There is also a problem with drainage of water from the patio. That resulted in rainwater pooling on it and that made it unusable when that was the case.
I accept that one would not usually use the patio when it was raining but the water would have remained for some time after it rained, and the situation was unsightly. The tenants were entitled to have a patio that drained efficiently.
A modest award of compensation is justified, and I award $200. Chattels
The tenancy agreement listed the chattels to be provided and it included curtains. But there were no curtains. Ms Ranger said that the inclusion of curtains in the list was a mistake. She pointed out that there were blinds and shutters which performed the same function.
I accept that her point is correct, to an extent. But blinds and shutters do not have the same insulating properties as curtains. The tenants complained about the difficulty of heating the premises and the amount of their power bills.
The tenants were entitled to expect the chattels that were listed in the chattels list to be provided with the premises. I therefore award $250 for the absence of curtains.
I find that the tenants had their own requirements and standards regarding the furniture and linen that they wanted in the premises. Some of the furniture and bedding that the landlord provided did not meet the tenants’ expectations. But overall, I do not find that an award of compensation is warranted for the tenants’ decision to buy some items to replace those provided by the landlord. The furniture and bedding provided were usable. The tenants also of course now have the benefit of those items. Exemplary Damages
The tenants experienced other problems during the tenancy and the landlord responded to their complaints. The tenants assert that the landlord “deceived” them by failing to bring to their attention the defects that existed from the beginning of the tenancy and generally that the quality of the premises was significantly lower than the other house they looked at.
I don’t accept there was deception. The tenants could have inspected the premises thoroughly and satisfied themselves about its condition. But that said, I find that the premises were not provided to the tenants in a reasonable state of repair. If the landlords had been proactive to bring the defects to the tenants’ attention, they could at least have made an informed decision about accepting them.
The landlord knew about the defects, and it is no answer for them to say that the premises suffered from these defects and that it was out of the landlord’s control. If it was out of the landlord’s control, and I doubt that it was, then the landlord had an obligation to disclose the situation to the tenants before granting them the tenancy.
I find, therefore, that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the premises to the tenants in a reasonable state of repair and that an award of exemplary damages is required. I have awarded compensation separately and so the award is essentially a penalty. An award of $1,000 is appropriate. Filing Fee
The tenants have had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason I have granted the tenants name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001288 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001288 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions