What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011909 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 5011909?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Benchtop: $736.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011909?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11162276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011909 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 5011909?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Benchtop: $736.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011909?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11162276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 60 Riverpark Crescent, Henderson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5011909 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011909 — net $91.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Benchtop	$736.00		Repairs: Benchtop
Exemplary damages: Ceiling insulation and drainage		$800.00	Ceiling insulation and drainage
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$736.00	$827.00
Net award		$91.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$91.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011909 — net $91.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Benchtop	$736.00		Repairs: Benchtop
Exemplary damages: Ceiling insulation and drainage		$800.00	Ceiling insulation and drainage
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$736.00	$827.00
Net award		$91.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$91.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Premium Rental Property Management Limited Carlos Chai must pay [The tenant/s] $91.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The bond is to remain at the Bond Centre until determination of the landlord’s counter-claim for rent arrears (application 5087708).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by [Employee A] and [Employee B]. The landlord was represented by Mr Chai.
Following the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for release of the bond, exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the required standards for ceiling insulation and drainage, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
In a cross-application filed the morning of the hearing, the landlord cross- applied for compensation for damage to the kitchen benchtop, rent arrears, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s cross-application (5087708) in respect of rent arrears (only) is adjourned and is to be considered at a further hearing. It became apparent that the tenants would require another employee present at that hearing to give evidence on whether that employee and the landlord entered into a verbal agreement for a two-week rent-holiday. The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 31 October 2018.
The tenant is a registered community housing provider. The landlord is a private landlord. The tenancy agreement gave the tenant the right to sub-lease the property.
The tenancy agreement was initially a 12-month fixed term tenancy, which rolled over into a periodic tenancy. There were no amendments or variations made to the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy came to an end on 23 August 2024.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the benchtop?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Damage was caused to the benchtop during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has accepted liability for the damage. The laminate benchtop had several gouges on the edges.
The landlord and tenant discussed the damage during the tenancy. It was discovered early on in the tenancy and the tenant accepted liability to repair it. The landlord elected not to have it repaired during the tenancy in case further damage was caused by subsequent sub-tenant(s).
When nearing the end of the tenancy, on 27 July 2024, the tenant obtained a quote to repair the damaged parts of the benchtop. The quote provided was for $640 + GST. The tenant emailed the quote to the landlord.
The repair work was not carried out and the tenancy came to an end on 23 August 2024.
In September, the landlord viewed the property and the benchtop. He took the view the entire benchtop needed replacing.
On 16 September 2024, the landlord’s agent emailed the tenant and stated the benchtop would need to be replaced at a cost of “around $1700 plus installation.” The tenant refused to compensate the landlord for a new benchtop but stated they would pay the quoted cost of repair, being $640 + GST.
In the landlord’s cross-application, the landlord seeks compensation of $6,000 to replace the benchtop. The landlord’s agent did not provide a written quote to support the figure of $6,000. He stated that in October he received a verbal quote of $6,000 to install a new benchtop of similar material.
The landlord stated that on 3 October 2024 the contractor who had provided the quote to the tenant carried out repairs on the benchtop. The landlord produced photos on his phone which showed the gouges had been filled in with a filler material which was a similar colour to the laminate benchtop. The landlord submitted the repair was not sufficient and a new benchtop was required.
The contractor who carried out the repair work has not yet sent the landlord an invoice for the work carried out, however it is expected to be at the quoted price of $640 + GST.
During the hearing, the landlord’s agent advised the property is approximately 30 years old. The landlord was unsure when the benchtop was installed but confirmed it was not new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not have a record of the benchtop’s condition when the tenancy commenced in October 2018.
The landlord’s agent stated the landlord had not made an insurance claim.
The tenant’s must compensate the landlord for the cost of repairing the damage to the benchtop which they accept their sub-tenants made.
I am satisfied compensation of $736 (being $640 + GST) is an appropriate amount in compensation given the age of the property, and therefore the benchtop, the wear and tear it would likely have in that time period, and the lack of evidence of the benchtop’s condition at the start of the property.
In making this determination, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant (and sub-tenant) not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age of benchtop and its likely useful lifespan Did the landlord fail to comply with the required standards for ceiling insulation and drainage? Ceiling insulation
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to properly insulate the premises to Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals: i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented out by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
In this case, the tenancy was a private rental, 1 and the tenancy commenced before all of the above dates.
However, even before 1 July 2021, the landlord had responsibilities to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety (see section 45(1)(c) of the RTA).
Under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, from 1 July 2019, all residential premises were required to be insulated to a minimum standard. Those minimum standards were: a. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction) and the insulation must be in reasonable condition; b. Where an R-value is not known, the insulation must have a minimum thickness of 120mm.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching the obligation under s45(1)(c) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
On 3 July 2024, the landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Assessment from Trust Property Service (the July Report). The July Report recorded that the ceiling insulation was messy and in some areas did not meet the minimum thickness requirement of 120mm.
In respect of the ceiling insulation, I find the landlord 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) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined the landlord should pay $500 in exemplary damages for failing to comply with ceiling insulation standards. I find this for the following reasons: a. Ceiling insulation requirements came into force from 1 July 2019, approximately three years before the July Report was completed. The 1 The tenant was a registered community housing provider, however the landlord was not. landlord had failed to meet an obligation which had been in place for several years. b. There is significant public interest in ensuring all homes for rent meet the minimum insulation requirements.
The award is relatively modest because I also take into account the following: a. The July Report does not specify how large the area of ceiling insulation was that was less than 120mm; b. The tenant confirmed none of the sub-tenants complained about cold or lack of insulation while in the home; and c. The landlord obtained a second Healthy Homes Assessment from Innovate Building Suppliers dated 26 August 2024 which found the ceiling insulation had been remedied and was compliant as at that date (the August Report). Drainage
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS drainage standard.
As with the requirements for ceiling insulation, the proper ground to consider this claim is under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA for failure to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety.
Section 27 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, states a tenancy building must have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The July Report stated there were problems with the premises’ external guttering and drainage. Photos included in the report show one of the down- pipes had broken or become disconnected and parts of the guttering were leaking at the joins.
The August Report stated the drainage system was, by then, in good working order and all gutters/downpipes were connected and intact. A photograph of the front of the premises shows the downpipe that was broken or had become disconnected in the July Report had been repaired.
In respect of the drainage, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
I also find the unlawful act was committed intentionally (see s109(3) of the RTA). I have determined the landlord should pay $300 for failing to comply with drainage standards. I find this for the following reasons: a. Drainage requirements came into force from 1 July 2019, approximately three years before the July Report was completed. The landlord had failed to meet an obligation which had been in place for several years; and b. The disconnected downpipe was easily visible from the front of the house.
The award is relatively modest because I also take into account the following: a. The tenant confirmed none of the sub-tenants complained about drainage issues or any damage caused by the drainage issues; and b. The August Report records that the drainage failures had been remedied by 26 August 2024. Suppression
Both parties sought orders suppressing their names. The starting point is one of open justice. I note that the tenant had accepted liability for damage to the benchtop, in the amount as awarded. I therefore find the tenant largely succeeded and is entitled to suppression of their name and identifying details.
The landlord has not succeeded in their cross-claim as to damages. It is in the public interest to identify landlords who do not comply with the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety. I dismiss the landlord’s application for suppression. Filing fee
The tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim therefore the landlord must reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011909 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 60 Riverpark Crescent, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011909 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 60 Riverpark Crescent, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the benchtop?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the benchtop?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions