What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5014450 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 5014450?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of use of spa bat…: $500.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11055913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5014450 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 5014450?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of use of spa bat…: $500.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11055913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Arkwright Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5014450 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014450 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of use of spa bath	$500.00	loss of use of spa bath
Compensation: cleaning by tenants after contractor's visits and after toilet leaks	$200.00	cleaning by tenants after contractor's visits and after toilet leaks
Net award	$700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$700.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014450 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of use of spa bath	$500.00	loss of use of spa bath
Compensation: cleaning by tenants after contractor's visits and after toilet leaks	$200.00	cleaning by tenants after contractor's visits and after toilet leaks
Net award	$700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$700.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Rempstone Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $700.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for compensation by way of weekly rent relief is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The application for work orders is dismissed.
No orders are made on the landlord’s application as it was only a defence to the tenants’ application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Sun and Ms Gao represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for a work order, compensation, and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord.
Both parties provided written evidence and documentation. I have considered all the material placed before the Tribunal, including 2 videos the tenants produced, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
This tenancy started on 26 January 2024 and is a current tenancy. However, the owner of the premises has decided to place the property on the market for sale and the tenants have received a notice to terminate the tenancy for that reason. The tenancy will end on 23 January 2025, though the tenants are free to vacate before then without penalty should they choose.
The tenancy has been beset with repair and maintenance issues.
On 17 July 2024, the Tribunal made work orders, mostly by consent, and awarded the tenants compensation of $2,040.00 for the inconvenience and loss of amenity arising from the landlord’s failure to comply with their statutory responsibilities.
The work order has been complied with, other than the direction to clean the spa bath jets to ensure that the water in the bath is not discoloured or contaminated.
The landlord did not just ignore that order; it arranged for a contractor to clean the spa jets, and one of the tenants also attempted to clean the jets (which means using a solution to clean the internal spa bath piping) but the problem has not fully resolved.
As suggested by the Tribunal, the landlord agreed for the tenants to do some of the work. They have invoiced the landlord for that work and the landlord has paid a total of $1,841.45 as a rent deduction.
The present application raised further issues and the Tribunal has had to be cautious to ensure that previous matters already litigated and decided on are not caught up in this application. Issues
The tenants seek the following: •Work orders for the bathroom fan to be vented to the exterior rather than into the garage; the replacement of the spa bath or a repair to make the discolouration cease; and the addition of insulation in the attack. •Compensation of $200.00 for the landlord’s contractor not complying with conditions of entry and causing the tenants anxiety. •Compensation of $200.00 due to the presence of carpet moth. •Compensation of $500.00 arising from the landlord issuing a 14-day compliance notice. •Compensation of $59.50 per week for the bathroom extraction fan not venting to the outside. •Compensation of $20.40 per week for missing insulation in the attic as well as $200.00 for increased power costs and $65.00 for an insulation report fee. •Compensation of $59.50 per week for not having the use of the spa bath. •Compensation of $400.00 for having to clean leakages from the toilet and for cleaning required after the landlord’s contractor’s visits.
Therefore, the Tribunal must decide these issues: •Should the Tribunal make another work order? •Are the tenants entitled to further compensation beyond that awarded by the Tribunal in its order dated 17 July 2024? If so, how much? •Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award them exemplary damages? Relevant legal consideration
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, 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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion

Should the Tribunal make another work order?

I make no work order for any further work on the bath, or its replacement. The landlord complied with the Tribunal’s work order as best it could. Neither it, nor the tenants, have been able to find a solution to the black matter (the tenants describe it as mould; more likely it is black scale from the internal piping) that continues to be an issue.
The house is soon to be placed on the market for sale. It would not be reasonable for the Tribunal to order further work to the bath when the work done to date has not solved the problem. Rather, the Tribunal will award the tenants compensation for the loss of use of the bath.
I make no work order for the venting of the bathroom extraction fan. First, the tenants have not proved a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Second, they said this is no longer a priority because the weather is warmer, and it is easier to leave the garage door and window open.
I make no work order for extra insulation in the walls of the attic. Again, the tenants have not proved a HHS breach as far as the attic is concerned. Are the tenants entitled to further compensation beyond that awarded by the Tribunal in its order dated 17 July 2024? If so, how much?
The tenants’ claims for compensation are separate from that awarded by the Tribunal in its order dated 17 July 2024. That said, it is not especially clear what breaches the Tribunal compensated since the Tribunal simply referred to the tenants having experienced considerable inconvenience and loss of amenity arising from the landlord’s failure to comply with their obligations.
The email the tenants sent the landlord setting out the costs they claimed referred in part to your contractor not vacating the upstairs space by 3pm and leaving it in an unclean state - $100.00. The landlord has included that amount in what it has paid by way of a rent deduction.
Some of the claims mentioned by the tenant are not ones that would attract compensation. The frustrations dealing with the contractor, and the described anxiety around those dealings, are not landlord breaches. Any property occupier – owner or tenant – can experience frustration dealing with contractors. Often tradespeople must juggle jobs and, as was the case here, spend time obtaining parts. Repair work requires co-operation and reasonableness on both sides. The tenants were keen to persuade the Tribunal that they were always reasonable; having heard the evidence I am not persuaded that they always were.
The Tribunal does not award compensation for hurt feelings, or a perception of rudeness. Having viewed the tenants’ video evidence (one of which was unintentionally provided) I am not persuaded that the landlord’s contractor was solely at fault. The tenants seemed quick to take offence and eager to record events.
Of the matters described in evidence, the Tribunal is prepared to award compensation of $200.00 for the tenants having to clean after the toilet leaked repeatedly leading to a more serious leak of raw sewage following which the toilet pipe was repaired, and the cleaning required after the contractor’s visit.
The Tribunal also finds it appropriate to compensate the tenants for the loss of use of the spa bath due to the black scaling from the internal pipes being a recurring problem.
The tenants do not miss the spa function so much as the use of the bath itself. Because the property will be placed on the market for sale within a relatively short time, it is unrealistic for the Tribunal to order the replacement of the bath.
But the loss of use of the bath is a loss of an amenity that was part of the tenancy. For this loss I award the tenants $500.00.
No compensation can be awarded for the landlord issuing a 14-day notice. A landlord has a statutory right to do so. As noted, compensation is not awarded for hurt feelings or injured pride.
The tenants experienced some inconvenience when the carpets were treated for carpet moth. The award I made for cleaning encompasses this as well. The tenants had to move some of their things, wipe down surfaces, and then move their goods back.
That there was carpet moth is not a landlord breach. It is something that can just happen. The more relevant issue is what the landlord does in response. Here, I find that the landlord responded appropriately and quickly.
I award no compensation for either the small areas of missing wall insulation in the attic nor for the downstairs bathroom fan venting into the garage. There is no proven landlord breach in respect of either matter.
I award no compensation for the insulation report the tenants obtained. Each party bears the cost of producing their evidence. Have the tenants proved breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award them exemplary damages?
The tenants allege that the premises are not HHS compliant for 2 reasons. First, they say that there is some insulation missing in the attic. Second, they say that the bathroom fan vents into the garage and is therefore not externally vented. In evidence they produced a report from Ark Insulation. The report says that there are some missing spaces where the insulation in the attic does not adequately cover the external wall space. The report noted that the insulation (Pink Batts and Knauf Glasswool Ceiling Insulation) appears to be in good condition.
This claim cannot succeed. The insulation regulations only require insulation in the ceiling and underfloor areas (where accessible) not to walls. The tenants say that the attic walls are really part of the ceiling, but I find there is a distinction.
Nor can the claim for the alleged inadequate venting of the bathroom fan. The landlord has produced in evidence a HHS assessment report. The original report was dated 1 September 2021. It was updated on 7 March 2024. The tenants allege that the report is fraudulent because it refers to an inspection on 29 February 2024, which they say did not happen.
I do not find proved any fraudulent documentation in so far as the HHS report is concerned.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional HHS assessment it obtained, as is the Tribunal. The tenants have not produced any HHS assessment report in evidence to prove that the premises do not comply.
The bathroom fan vents to the garage beside an openable window. The assessor considered that meant compliance with the HHS for the ventilation of the premises. No evidence has been produced to refute that.
To succeed on a claim for exemplary damages the tenants would need to show that the landlord turned their mind to the act (HHS non-compliance) and then deliberately set about to commit it. That is not what happened here. The landlord had the premises professionally assessed for HHS compliance. It was entitled to rely on the assessment.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $700.00 as compensation for cleaning and the loss of use of the spa bath.
The application for a work order is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee as the application is only partly successful.
No orders are made (or required) on the landlord’s application. Name suppression
The tenants have only succeeded in part and would not normally be eligible for a name suppression order. However, to ensure that the name suppression order previously made by the Tribunal is not breached I have ordered suppression of their names on this application as well.
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014450 — Leaks at 32 Arkwright Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014450 — Leaks at 32 Arkwright Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make another work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make another work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions