What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5001649 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case. The tenant has had

How much money was awarded in case 5001649?

Property Damage: $1,290.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Maintenance Obligations: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,754.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11946122-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5001649 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case. The tenant has had

How much money was awarded in case 5001649?

Property Damage: $1,290.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Maintenance Obligations: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,754.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11946122-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5001649 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001649 — net $4,754.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears owed as at 28 May 2025	$4,754.73		Rent arrears owed as at 28 May 2025
Exemplary damages: fail to provide required information		$500.00	fail to provide required information
Compensation: Fail to meet HH standards and repair		$1,290.00	Fail to meet HH standards and repair
maintenance obligations		$750.00	maintenance obligations
Total award	$4,754.73	$2,540.00
Net award	$4,754.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,754.73

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001649 — net $4,754.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears owed as at 28 May 2025	$4,754.73		Rent arrears owed as at 28 May 2025
Exemplary damages: fail to provide required information		$500.00	fail to provide required information
Compensation: Fail to meet HH standards and repair		$1,290.00	Fail to meet HH standards and repair
maintenance obligations		$750.00	maintenance obligations
Total award	$4,754.73	$2,540.00
Net award	$4,754.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,754.73

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case. The tenant has had claims upheld, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details and those of [the tenant’s partner]. 2. immediately as set out in the table below:

This Order supersedes and replaces all previous Orders in respect of this tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Preliminary matters
This tenancy has a lengthy history before the Tribunal, with multiple orders (including a Mediator’s Order) having been made.
The current proceedings involve applications by the tenant for compensation and/ or exemplary damages for the following alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations: a. failing to provide prescribed information in the agreement; b. failing to lodge the bond; c. failing to keep accurate records; d. failing to ensure compliance with healthy homes standards; e. failing to meet maintenance/ repair obligations; f. harassment; g. improperly disposing of the tenant’s goods.
The tenancy began on 30 March 2022 and ended with the tenant’s eviction on 20 September 2023.
The tenants’ application was filed on 11 September 2024. At the start of the hearing I explained that: a. the Tribunal can consider the applications for exemplary damages in respect of record keeping and bond, as the application was filed within one year of the end of the tenancy; but b. applications for exemplary damages for other breaches, can only be considered if brought within `12 months of the unlawful act being committed (s.109(2)(a) RTA).
I also confirmed that the Tribunal cannot make findings in respect of matters already determined by previous Orders of the Tribunal, including the Mediator’s Order. Rent
The landlord has proven the amount of arrears owed as at the date of hearing. That sum accounts for the bond that was paid to the landlord by Order of the Tribunal and for the payments made by the tenant under an attachment Order. Content of the agreement
Section 13A RTA requires that a landlord must include in the agreement certain specified information. That information includes: a. an insulation statement (s.13A(1A)); b. a Healthy Homes compliance statement (s.13A(1CA)); c. an insurance statement (s.13A(2)).
Failure to provide that information is in each case an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
The landlord acknowledges that none of the information noted in paragraph 9 was provided in the agreement. The landlord thereby committed an unlawful act.
A Healthy Homes compliance statement, signed by the owner, was provided on 21 August 2023, shortly before the tenancy ended.
Breach of the obligation to provide prescribed information constitutes a continuing breach until it is remedied. Breach of the obligation to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement, which included the required information about insulation of the premises, was remedied on 21 August 2023.
Breach of the obligation to provide an insurance statement continued until the end of the tenancy and so is within the s.109(2) timeframe, the tenant’s application having been filed within 12 months of the end of the tenancy. Section 45 Obligations
Section 45(1) requires a landlord to: a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (s.45(1)(b)); b. comply with Healthy Homes standards (s.45(1)(bb)).
Breaching either of those obligations is unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. Healthy Homes Standards
The Healthy Homes standards are set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
As noted, the landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement at the start of the tenancy. That failure continued until a compliance statement, signed by the owner was provided on 21 August 2023. The landlord accepts that it is fair for the Tribunal to infer that the Healthy Homes standards were not met until that compliance statement was issued.
The compliance statement notes that “The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy is 2/7/2021.”
It follows that the landlord breached its obligation to ensure compliance with Healthy Homes standards. That breach continued till at least 21 August 2023.
The tenant claims that the landlord also breached its obligations in respect of providing compliant smoke alarms. The evidence provided does not prove that claim.
The owner’s compliance statement is not evidence of compliance, it is only evidence that the owner believed compliance had been met. It is therefore necessary to consider the evidence about actual compliance.
It is surprising and somewhat disappointing that the landlord has chosen not to obtain a third party assessment of the premises’ compliance, to address this issue.
Each of the compliance standards was considered during the hearing. Heating
There is no evidence to suggest that the owner’s assessment of the required heating capacity and the provision of a heat pump of sufficient capacity, was incorrect. I find no breach of the Healthy Home standards proved in that regard. Insulation
The compliance statement claims exemption from the requirement to install ceiling and under floor insulation on the basis that the concrete floor and skillion roof make it impracticable for insulation to be installed. That assessment is supported by a third party insulation assessment prepared in 2017. I find no breach of that Healthy Home standard proved. Ventilation
The ventilation standard includes a requirement that each habitable space in the premises must have one or more qualifying windows or doors. A qualifying window or door opens to the outdoors and is designed and built in a way that allows it to remain fixed open during normal occupation of the premises.
It is not disputed and that at the start of the tenancy the sole window in one of the bedrooms (bedroom 2 in the inspection reports) was unable to be opened. The landlord’s records show that a work order was generated on 30 June 2022 and a quote for the repair was obtained on 20 July 2022, with an installation lead time of 19-20 weeks. The inspection reports show that the replacement window was installed between the inspection on 1 September 2022 which noted, “Window still not arrived...due to be installed 07/09” and the inspection done on 11 November 2022 which records, “New window installed...”
Until the window was replaced the inability for the window to open, breached the Healthy Homes ventilation standard.
The evidence shows that in the open kitchen/ living area there was a ranch slider door. What appeared to be an openable window was not in fact able to be opened. The landlord generated a work order for repair of that window so it could be opened, on 8 August 2022. The evidence does not show when/ that issue was addressed. The landlord followed up on 6 January 2023 to check whether the kitchen window not being able to be opened, had been remedied. The following inspection report on 13 April 2023 notes, “PM to follow up on kitchen window and mixer tap with tenant...Kitchen windows??” I infer that the remedial work had not been done by that date. If the landlord’s contractors had done the work, the landlord would surely know.
I find it proved on balance that the premises breached also the ventilation standard because that window could not open as required.
The ventilation standard requires that each room in the premises with an indoor cook top, bath or shower must have an extractor fan installed that vents to the outside and is in good working order. The standard specifies the diameter and extraction capacity for that mechanical ventilation. The compliance statement is deficient in failing to a record the diameter and exhaust capacity of the extractor.
Inspection reports show continuing presence of excessive mould growth in the bathroom and requests by the tenant to have the effectiveness and compliance of the extractor and whether it was properly ducted to the outside, checked.
The landlord is in a position to have had compliance independently assessed and has not done so.
On balance I find it more likely than not that the ventilation standard was not met in that respect as well. Draught stopping
The draught stopping standard requires that the premises are free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps or holes that allow noticeable draught in or out of the building. The HH compliance statement says that is the case.
The tenant disputes that statement saying that the fixed window in the kitchen has holes in the framing and that the door had large and noticeable gaps around it that allowed draughts through.
The photographic evidence provided does not corroborate the tenant’s evidence about draughts in the premises and those draughts are not noted in the inspection reports as a concern raised by the tenant.
I do not find it proved that the premises did not comply with the draught stopping standard. Moisture ingress and drainage
The standard requires that the premises have gutters and down pipes that efficiently drain stormwater, surface water and groundwater to an appropriate outfall. The compliance statement at the says that the premises comply.
The tenant disputes that, saying that the gutters and down pipes were damaged and blocked and that when it rained the stormwater system “bubbled up” and overflowed causing significant ponding around the entrance to the premises. That concern was noted in the inspection reports.
Photographs provided by the tenant show what appear to be poorly completed patches on roofing iron, broken downpipes and flashings and what appear to be signs of water ingress on internal ceilings.
The inspection reports record those concerns, noting the tenant’s observations that although there were no obvious leaks, there were cracks and stain marks on the ceiling that appeared to be increasing in size. The reports not as required maintenance issues that downpipes and drainage needed to be checked and the tenant had requested that the roof be inspected.
The evidence provided satisfies me on balance that the moisture ingress and drainage standards were not met.
The breaches of the landlord’s obligation to ensure the premises met Healthy Homes standards, all arise from lack of maintenance/ repair and also in this case constitute a breach of the landlord’s obligation to ensure the premises were provided and maintained in reasonable sate of repair. Record keeping
Section 30 RTA requires that a landlord, “....keep or cause to be kept proper business records showing— (a) all payments of rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant, sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant...”
The tenant had previously been a tenant of the adjoining property [redacted]. The Tribunal Order dated 16 January 2023 (application 4449100) notes an error made by the landlord in continuing to credit the tenant’s rent payments to [Tenancy address suppressed] after this tenancy started and then making lump sum transfers to the ledger for this tenancy, [redacted].
Understandably, when the ledger records were provided to the tenant, they made little sense to her as she had continued to make her usual weekly rent payments.
That Order noted that the landlord was to provide updated and accurate records.
I find that the landlord has done so. The records kept by the landlord were sufficiently accurate to enable the Tribunal to make an Order on that date quantifying the arrears owed and for the tenant to feel able to agree to the amount of rent outstanding at a later mediation.
The outcome of that mediation is recorded in a Mediator’s Order dated 21 August 2023. It seems likely that the tenant is correct when she asserts that no mediation took place on that date and that in fact it took place on 31 October 2023. There is no evidence that that the incorrect date was anything other than a typing error by the mediator when preparing the Order, rather than an attempt to mislead the tenant in some way, as she believes.
The landlord provided an updated rent summary for this hearing which accounts for the landlord having received the bond and a series of payments by way of an attachment Order.
The tenant initially questioned why there are periods in the rent record when no receipt of those attachment order payments is recorded. The landlord says it is simply because those payments were not received from WINZ, for reasons the landlord is not aware of. The tenant was given the opportunity to obtain and provide evidence that those payments were in fact made, but she elected not to.
I do not find a continuing breach of the landlord’s obligations under s.30 proved. Harassment
Under s.38(3), breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment, is an unlawful act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
A person who had previously been the tenant’s case manager at WINZ a took a job with the landlord and became the tenant’s property manager.
The tenant objected on the basis that created a conflict of interest.
I accept there is a possibility that privacy/ confidentiality obligations owed to the tenant by her WINZ case manager conflicted with other obligations that same person had as the landlord’s property manager.
I can understand that from the tenant’s point of view, having the same person in both those roles would feel very uncomfortable. The evidence does not show though any conduct that would constitute a breach of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA – though other legislation outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction may have relevance.
The tenant also says that the landlord effectively spied on her, using the opportunity, when at the adjoining property, also managed by the landlord, to take photographs of the tenant’s property and belongings.
Having considered the evidence on file and heard from the parties, there does seem a possibility that the close relationships and interchanging roles between WINZ, Oranga Tamariki and the landlord, did make it easy for information about the tenant to be shared between them.
The tenant signed a privacy waiver allowing information sharing between the landlord and WINZ, although of course that should only allow the sharing of information directly related to the tenancy.
Records obtained and provided by the tenant show discussions between the landlord and Oranga Tamariki about the tenant. The tenant says that breached her right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises. The landlord says that the sharing of information with OT was consistent with its child protection policies.
I understand that the tenant felt “surveilled” by those agencies working together.
The tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment under s.38 RTA relates to her occupation of the premises. The evidence falls short of proving a breach of the tenants right to quiet enjoyment the premises and well short of proving harassment of the tenant in the sense defined above.
Also, any exemplary damages claim would need to have been brought within 12 months of the date of the alleged conduct, which was before 11 September 2023, 12 months before this application was filed. A claim for exemplary damages in respect of that conduct is precluded by s.109(2). Bond
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 tenant paid a bond of $1,680.00 for her previous tenancy at [redacted].
The tenant says that records prove that 3 bonds were paid to the landlord for the tenancy at [redacted]. That does not accord with the landlord’s records and is not proved by the evidence provided by the tenant.
The bond at [redacted] was held in the name of the tenant and her then partner [tenant’s ex partner]. That bond was transferred to the Bond Centre as a bond for this tenancy in early May 2022, within 23 working days of transfer.
The tenant suggests there was something improper in the bond having being held for she and the [tenant’s ex partner], then for her alone.
What the evidence shows is that both the tenant and the [tenant’s ex partner] signed the bond transfer form, transferring the [redacted] bond to the tenancy for [Tenancy address suppressed]. That form was signed on 8 April 2022. It appears that it was intended at that stage for this tenancy to be for both the tenant and [the tenant’s ex partner] because [the tenant’s ex partner] new address on the form is also recorded as [Tenancy address suppressed].
It is not clear from the evidence, if that was intended, why [the tenant’s ex partner] did not become a tenant at [Tenancy address suppressed], but I struggle to see how the tenant has been disadvantaged by what happened. The bond held for the [redacted] tenancy was transferred to this tenancy as intended. It happened within the required time frame. That bond has been used to the tenant’s benefit by being applied to reduce her rent debt.
A bond top up of $20.00 was required because the rent for [Tenancy address suppressed] was higher than [redacted]. That top up was paid by the tenant out of a credit in her [redacted] rent account. That $20.00 top up was not lodged with the Bond Centre until September 2023.
The Bond Centre sent the tenant confirmation of that $20.00 bond receipt on 20 September 2023. That brought the total bond held from the $1,680.00 lodged in March, to the new bond amount of $1,700.00.
Unfortunately, the Bond Centre seems to have entered that in the system as lodgement of the whole of the bond for the tenancy and sent out a further confirmation to the tenant on 25 September 2023 that it had received a bond payment of $1,700.00 on 21 September 2023 for the tenant and [the tenant’s ex partner].
That error was quickly corrected. While understandably a bit confusing, the tenant has taken the conflicting information she received from the Bond Centre as proof of something dishonest on the landlord’s part.
That is a serious allegation which the evidence does not support
As noted, all but $20.00 of the bond was dealt with as required. I accept that the landlord’s failure to lodge the additional $20.00, which was received by way of rent credit, not a direct payment from the tenant, was an oversight.
That oversight, while a breach of the landlord’s obligations under s.19 and an unlawful act, is not, in my view, a breach of such a nature or extent that an award of exemplary damages would be just. Disposal of Goods
Sections 62 and 62A RTA set out a comprehensive regime for dealing with goods left at premises when a tenancy ends. Those provisions require that: “(1) Where, on the termination of the tenancy, the tenant leaves on the premises foodstuffs or other perishable goods, the landlord may, immediately after taking possession of the premises, dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit. (2) If the tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods , the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. (3) If the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or if the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord must ensure that any personal documents belonging to the tenant are stored securely and must deal with the other goods either— (a) in accordance with section 62A; or (b) by securing them in safe storage and by applying to the Tribunal in accordance with section 62B......... The landlord may deal with the goods to which section 62(3) applies, other than personal documents belonging to the tenant, by making all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of those goods. (2) If the assessment under subsection (1) indicates that any of the goods have a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord may immediately dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit. (3) If the assessment under subsection (1) indicates that any of the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord must secure those goods in safe storage for not less than 35 days from the date on which the landlord first took possession of those goods. (4) If, before the landlord disposes of the goods under subsection (5), the tenant claims the goods and any personal documents belonging to the tenant or claims either the goods or the documents,— (a) the landlord may require the tenant to pay the landlord’s actual and reasonable costs arising out of the storage of the goods; and (b) the landlord must release to the tenant any goods and personal documents claimed by the tenant, subject to payment of any costs required under paragraph (a); and (c) the tenant must give the landlord a receipt for any goods and personal documents released to the tenant.”
After the tenant had been evicted from the premises the landlord arranged for storage bins to be provided for the tenant to store her belongings. The tenant rejected that offer and the bins were returned.
Arrangements were made with the tenant for a trailer load of her belongings to be taken to her new address.
The landlord has provided video footage of a conversation with the tenant on the day of the eviction, in which the tenant confirms that everything of value had been taken from the premises.
The tenant was given the opportunity to make arrangement to collect her other belongings. On 11 October 2023, the landlord moved all items it had assessed as being of possible value to the carport of the property, so they could be collected. They weren’t collected.
Over a month later the landlord made arrangements for those remaining goods to be disposed of. Its contractor had made an assessment that the goods had no value over and above and cost of storing and selling them.
The tenant says that when she said on the day of the eviction that she had taken everything of value, she was only referring to things with a monetary value, not to other possession which she says had immense personal value. She says the landlord was made aware, before the remining items were disposed of, that some had immense personal and sentimental value to her and that she wanted them.
Included in the evidence is an e-mail from the tenant to the landlord dated 10 December 2023 stating: “I've been asking since October now when I can come and pick up my stuff that still at the flat please? I was told you would let me know and we'll pass it on to property managers and I've asked multiple times since and still had no reply. Can somebody please tell me when I can do this?”
The earlier communications are not in evidence.
The landlord replied, explaining that the tenant’s remaining belongings had been disposed of and the reasons why.
It is very sad that the tenant has lost belongings of personal and sentimental value to her. However, the evidence does not show a breach of the landlord’s obligations under s.62 and 62A. Fair opportunity was given to the tenant to keep and to collect her belongings, and the RTA does not require that a landlord store a tenant’s goods indefinitely.
That claim is dismissed Should compensation or exemplary damages be awarded for the landlord’s breaches?
As noted above the time limits that apply to bringing claims for exemplary damages under section 109 RTA do not apply to compensation claims.
I have found that the landlord breached its obligation to: a. provide the tenant with prescribed information; b. ensure the premises complied with Healthy Home standards and meet maintenance/ repair obligations with regard to: i. the bedroom window being unable to open; ii. the kitchen window being able to open; iii. the effectiveness of mechanical extraction; iv. water ingress and drainage
In terms of the failure to provide information, the landlord’s breach required the tenant to pursue the information that ought to have been provided at the outset. The information was of particular relevance given the acknowledged issues with dampness and mould in the premises that raised legitimate questions about the premises’ compliance with Healthy Homes standards, that were not answered through the compliance statement until the tenancy had almost ended.
In terms of the failure to ensure the premises were adequately maintained and met Healthy Homes standards, the breaches related to adequacy of ventilation and damp proofing.
The 14 day remedy notices given by the tenant, communications from the tenant to the landlord, concerns raised with the landlord by Oranga Tamariki and the landlord’s own inspection report notes and photographs, all corroborate the tenant’s evidence that the premises were badly affected by dampness and mould, particularly until the window in bedroom 2 was replaced.
Issues continued with high mould levels present in the bathroom despite the tenant’s recorded requests to have the extractor checked and with the kitchen/ living space not having an opening window as required.
That evidence supports the tenant’s complaints that she was continually having to clean mouldy surfaces and was effectively unable to use bedroom 2 as a bedroom, with her children sleeping in the lounge instead.
Those serious effects of the landlord’s breaches on the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premise are difficult to quantify mathematically. They do, in my view warrant an award of compensation by way of general damages.
The purpose of general damages to compensate for pain or suffering or emotional distress”. 1
As to quantifying general damages, in Tenant v Ezy Rentals 2 the Tribunal said: “By reference to Otautahi, I consider the bands that might usefully inform the Tribunal’s decision in this case are: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to 1 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 (at para [35]) 2 Tenant v Ezy Rentals [2022] NZTT 4323927 $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.”
In the circumstances of this case, I take into account that: a. the impacts on the tenant of the landlord’s breaches were initially very significant; b. those impacts were reduced over time by remediation work done by the landlord; c. the tenancy was of relatively short duration; d. the short duration of the tenancy was not related to the landlord’s breaches.
Applying the approach in Ezy Rentals (above) I consider an award of general damages of $1,290.00 (three week’s rent) would be fair.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Exemplary Damages

If the landlord’s breach constitutes an unlawful act, as defined in the RTA and is committed intentionally, exemplary damages may be awarded up to the maximum sum specified in Schedule 1A RTA, having regard to s.109(3) which provides that: “If, on an application under subsection (1)..., the Tribunal is satisfied that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that, having regard to— (a) the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and (b) the effect of the unlawful act; and (c) the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) the public interest,— it would be just to require the person against whom the order is sought to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages, the Tribunal may make an order accordingly.”
The purpose of an award of exemplary damages is not to provide compensation to other party but to punish the unlawful act.
I have found that the landlord has committed unlawful acts (not being those excluded by s.109(2)) under: a. section13A(1F) RTA - failing to provide required information b. section 45(1A) – failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable sate of repair and failing to meet Healthy Homes standards.
In terms of the s.13A(1F) breach, the breach was intentional. In this context it is the act itself (not providing the information) not an intention to act unlawfully, that is relevant.
There is no reasonable explanation for the landlord not having provided to the tenant the information required in the tenancy agreement or for that breach to have continued as long as it did. The landlord seems to have been dependent on information being provided by the owner, but Visions of a Helping Hand is the landlord named in the agreement and as such it has the obligation to ensure the landlord’s obligations are met.
The public interest requires that landlords be encouraged to mee these important obligations.
I find that an award of exemplary damages of 2/3 the maximum for a single breach would reflect that there were, initially, multiple breaches of the landlord’s obligations.
As regards the breaches of s.45(2), the failure to ensure Healthy Homes compliance was intentional. As the owner’s compliance statement shows, the compliance date was before this tenancy started.
One of the most fundamental breaches, the failure of the only window in one of the bedrooms to be able to open, the landlord acted reasonably quickly in having a work Order put in place for the repair and should not be punished for the suppliers inability to supply a replacement window earlier. As noted, the breach was remedied more than 12 months before the date of the tenant’s application.
The continuing breaches were more minor and an award of compensation has been made for the effects on the tenancy.
The continuing breaches occurred in relation to; a. enabling the kitchen window to open b. assessment/ compliance of the bathroom extractor c. assessment of roofing and drainage, compliance with HH standards.
As those continuing breaches all concern noted issues that potentially contributed to what were known and serious problems with dampness and mould in the premises, my view is that there should be evidence of their having been taken seriously and addressed.
For that reason in particular my view is that a modest award of exemplary damages should be made for those breaches in addition to the compensation awarded.
As the tenant has had claims upheld, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001649 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001649 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions