What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017932 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 5017932?

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 5017932?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Healthy homes, Rent arrears, State of repair, Smoke alarms, Leaks, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11734204-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017932 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 5017932?

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 5017932?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Healthy homes, Rent arrears, State of repair, Smoke alarms, Leaks, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11734204-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5017932 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.
Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Molly / Shaji Mathai/ Varghese must pay [The tenants] $8,101.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 1 October 2024 and 14 April 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This Order relates to two tenancies.
The tenants had co-tenants for their first tenancy, which commenced on 23 March 2021 and ended on 12 June 2022. They confirmed that they are aware that they are jointly and severally liable for any debt owed to the landlord as a result of that first tenancy.
The tenants took over the tenancy from 13 June 2022 and it ended on 14 May 2024.
A new tenancy agreement was signed by the tenants for the second tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Proving claims in the Tribunal
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The second tenancy ended on 14 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being: a. $1,908.57 rent arrears, owed to 14 May 2024; b. $115.03 water rates for April and May 2024.
The tenants disputed the rent summary, saying they had overpaid rent. The landlord has proven the rent summary is correct and the tenants have failed to prove otherwise.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and it had to undertake a general clean of the house at a cost of $368.00, shampoo the carpet at a cost of $368.00 and mow the lawns/tidy the gardens at a cost of $402.50.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The tenants have accepted liability for the lawns/tidy the gardens at a cost of $402.50. This amount has been awarded to the landlord.
At the 1 October 2024 hearing, the landlord produced evidence to support all three of these claims. The tenants produced some black and white photographs in their defence, but the photographs were not of a quality that disproved the landlord’s evidence. Consequentially, in my 1 October 2024 interim Order, I noted that the landlord had proven all three of these claims. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants referred me to the video they had produced in evidence, for 1 October 2024 hearing and produced better quality colour photographs that prove the tenants had cleaned the premise to a reasonably clean and tidy standard by 18 May 2024. On closer examination I found the photographs submitted by the landlord had been taken on 17 May 2024, the day prior to the day the tenants completed the cleaning. I accept the tenants evidence disproves the landlord’s claim for $368.00 cleaning costs and dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly.
I accept that the tenants’ 18 May 2024 evidence proves they had cleaned the carpet, but there were still some stains the landlord had to have removed. Therefore, I award the landlord half of the carpet cleaning costs sought, being $184.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) 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) 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) 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) 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.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy, and that it was more than fair wear and tear and was not accidental damage: a. Door to lounge to garage damaged and changed at $299.00 and the door frame repaired at $138.00. The tenants say the top half of the door broke from slamming in the wind and that they reported this to the Property Manager at the time and he was fine with it and told the tenants they had to replace it. The landlord proved the new door the tenants installed was not correct for the doorframe and caused damage to the door frame as a result. This led to the door having to be replaced and the door frame repaired at the end of the tenancy. The landlord proved this claim at 1 October 2024 hearing and the tenants have not provided any evidence that disproves this claim. I accept this cost was incurred by the landlord due to the tenants’ careless acts or omissions, and award the landlord the compensation sought. b. The door was missing from living room to ground floor bedroom /bathroom corridor. The tenants say they took it to fix the doors that were damaged upstairs and that they got permission from the previous property manager to do this as the doors were broken by their previous co-tenants. I award the $299.00 claimed as the damage has been proven to be careless damage by the co- tenants during the tenancy that these tenants are jointly and severally liable for. c. Damage to the wall in the downstairs hallway at $92.00. The male tenant confirmed he tried to patch these holes and at the 1 October 2024 hearing the landlord has proven, by the 17 May 2024 exit inspection photographs, the repair was substandard and needed to be repatched, sanded and painted. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. d. Lounge wall repair at $92.00. The male tenant confirmed he has tried to patch these holes from the TV wall bracket and the landlord has proven the repair was substandard and needed to be repatched, sanded and painted. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. e. Damage to the lounge ceiling needed to be repaired at $92.00. The landlord has proven the tenants liability for this damage. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. f. Replacement of the missing wardrobe door in bedroom 1 at $816.50. The landlord has proven the tenants liability for this damage. The tenants have not disproven this claim. I award the compensation sought by the landlord. g. Wall damage in bedroom 1 needed to be repaired at $92.00. The landlord has proven the tenants liability for this damage. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. h. Bedroom 1 entrance door damage needed to be repaired at $299.00. The landlord has proven the tenants’ liability for this damage. The tenants have not disproven this claim. I award the compensation sought by the landlord. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. i. Bedroom 1 ensuite shower holder was broken and replacement was $138.00. The tenants claim the head came off the hose and that it was fair wear and tear. The landlord proved the hose was in good condition at the start of the tenancy and not loose. I accept that on the balance of probabilities it was the tenants careless use of the hose that damaged it and caused it to break off. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. j. Bedroom 2 Door damage that needed to be sanded and painted as the hole was badly puttied by the tenant when he tried to repair it. The cost was $172.50. The landlord has proven the tenants’ liability for this damage. k. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants produced photographs that prove the door in bedroom 2 was damaged at the start of the tenancy and they were unable opened it at the start of the first tenancy, so the tenants eventually damaged it forcefully opening it because they alleged the landlord failed to remedy it when it was raised with it. The landlord has been unable to successfully disprove the tenants evidence. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. l. Bedroom 3 required a door to be replaced as it had been replaced with the toilet door. The landlord has proven the tenants liability for this damage and the cost is $69.00. The tenants have not disproven this claim. I award the compensation sought by the landlord. m. Bedroom 4 wardrobe door was damaged and replaced with other doors at $816.50. The landlord has proven the tenants liability for this damage. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. n. Wall damage in bedroom 4 at $92.00. The landlord has proven the tenants liability for this damage. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. o. Bedroom 5 separate toilet door on the first floor was damaged and the landlord has proven the tenants liability for the repair of this damage at $816.50. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. p. Bedroom 5’s wardrobe door was damage at a cost of $299.00 to repair. The landlord has proven the tenants liability for this damage. At 14 April 2025 hearing, the tenants 18 May 2024 video and coloured photographs show the patching had been repaired after the exit inspection photographs were taken, to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I dismiss this landlord claim as the tenants have disproven the claim on the balance of probabilities. q. The oven door was missing at the end of the tenancy and cost $724.50 to replace. The tenants accepted they damaged it when the microwave was being moved and it dropped on top of the oven door and the oven door came off. The landlord has proven the tenants liability for this damage. The tenants have not disproven this claim. I award the compensation sought by the landlord. r. The garage office room glass sliding window glass panels and bottom track missing and cost $529.00 to repair. The tenants confirmed it got broken by a double bed when the last people moved out. The landlord has proven the tenants liability for this damage as the female tenant was jointly and severally liable for any damage done under the first tenancy agreement by her co- tenants. The tenants have not disproven this claim. I award the compensation sought by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Tenants Overcharged

The tenants have proven that they have been overcharged by the landlord for the following: a. Overpayment of gas charges of $449.31, where the landlord has charged the tenants for the cost of hiring the two gas bottles each month. The landlord is liable for costs of supplying gas to the premise and the tenants are only responsible for the consumption charges. The amount ordered is proven; and b. There is no evidence that the water credit of $165.12, listed on the invoice provided to the tenants at the end of their first tenancy, had been transferred to their second tenancy records. The landlord claimed at the hearing that it refunded $124.78 to tenant on 21 July 2023 and that the remainder of the $165.12 had been used to clear water rates arrears. The tenants bank records do not support that claim, nor do the landlord’s records, produced in evidence after the hearing. The amount awarded to the tenants is proven. c. The $442.75 deducted from the tenants first bond. This charge was initially for $484.15, but the parties agreed that 3 light bulbs be removed from the original invoice as they were not working at the start of the first tenancy. The landlord produced an email dated 3 June 2022 that it says shows the tenants accepted liability for the following damage: i. Installation of a third smoke alarm in the downstairs hallway at a cost of $74.75; ii. $189.75 to supply and install door locks; iii. $57.50 to repair the lock and door handles in garage to back entrance aluminium door; iv. $51.75 to replace door handles, door hinges and a door stop; and v. $110.40 for 8 light bulbs. The tenants produced evidence that proved this email acceptance of liability was for damage noted in the first tenancy exit inspection report, and the breach notice dated 1 June 2022. The damage that the landlord made the deduction for was for other damage that existed at the start of their first tenancy. The tenants produced evidence that the exit report damage was remediated by them and that the work they had been billed for related to works that was done on 10 April 2021, a few weeks after their first tenancy commenced, and that it was damage from the prior tenants. The landlord appeared confused as it was not billed for this work until 12 August 2022, so it had charged the tenants for it in error, thinking it was work that had been completed well into their first tenancy, for which it thought they were liable. The tenants also disproved the landlord’s claim that at the start of the first tenancy there was a third smoke alarm in the downstairs area of the premise. It claimed the tenants had taken this smoke alarm and it had to be replaced. The tenants have produced photographic evidence that proves there was only ever two smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy. Both were located upstairs. There was no smoke alarm in the downstairs area until one was installed on 10 April 2021. This amount was unlawfully deducted from the tenants first bond. The $442.75 compensation ordered to the tenants is proven, that was unlawfully deducted from their first bond. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant says the landlords have breached their s45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to him.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 3
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 4 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 5 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 6 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 7 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Under s45(1)(c) of the RTA, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 6 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
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.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 8
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 9 . However, 8 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 9 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 10 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 11 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 12 .
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which general and/or exemplary damages may be awarded.
The tenants claim the landlord failed to repair and maintain the following: a. Faulty front left and rear left elements on stove not working and by the end of the two tenancies the tenants were down to one working element; b. The dishwasher start button was stuck and the dishwasher would not work; c. The dials for stove were not turning on the elements as the dials were broken/worm inside; d. The power supply box for the hot water was located outside of the property and needed to be looked at. The tenants needed to run an extension cord out the garage window to power it; e. One of the upstairs alarms went of randomly all the time; f. The LPG bottles were in an unlawful location that breached health and safety regulations and the landlord did nothing to silicone the window near the gas bottles shut or move the gas bottles to a safer location despite being alerted by Genesis to the risk and breach of the relevant regulations; and g. The heat pump was leaking water outside when turned on.
The tenants claim that none of these were fixed during their tenancies. A. Stove elements and dials
The tenants say the two stove elements not working from start of the tenancy, and by end of tenancy only one of four elements were working. The tenants submitted that they raised this issue at each property inspection, and nothing was done. Further they raised the issue of the dials for stove not working as they were broken and worn inside. They claim these were also not fixed during their tenancy.
The landlord relied on entry inspection report, that I know was incorrect as the tenants have proven the smoke alarm and door handle damage was not recorded on this report, but existed at that time and the related remedial work was done on 10 April 2021.The landlord could not prove to me that this work had been done before the start of the first tenancy. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 11 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The landlord also relied on its exit inspection that records the appliances are working and just the stove needs cleaning.
The tenants produced a14-day notice in evidence that they proved they issued on 14 June 2022 to the landlord requesting it to: • Relocate the LPG bottle; • Provide access to hot water on first floor; • Repair the loose kitchen faucet; • Repair the elements not working on stove top; • Repair/replace the hot water unit that is blown; • Repair the ensuite towel rail that is not working; and • Repair/replace the back door handle.
The landlord claimed it has no record of 14-day notice in its system. I am satisfied that the tenants sent the 14-day notice on the balance of probabilities and that the landlord’s records are inaccurate.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the stove top elements and dials to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 164 weeks, from 23 March 2021 to 14 May 2024. I award the tenants compensation of $20.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants. This is a total rent rebate of $3,280.00 ($20 x 164 weeks).
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. B. Dishwasher start button
The tenants say the start button was stuck and the dishwasher was not working. They sent an email on 22 September 2022 about this issue to the property manager, who went on leave, and resent it to the acting property manager. They confirmed this button was not fixed during the tenancy.
The landlord says its 29 September 2022 inspection report says everything is working. The landlord was unable to prove this button had been fixed. It stated that the owner sometimes sent his own tradies and that may be why there is no record of the repair.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the dishwasher dial to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 85 weeks and 5 days weeks, from 22 September 2022 to 14 May 2024. I award the tenants compensation of $5.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants. This is a total rent rebate of $428.57 ($5 x 85 weeks= $425.00 plus $5.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 5= $3.57).
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. C. Smoke alarm going off randomly all the time
The tenants say one of the upstairs smoke alarms kept going off randomly.
The tenants stated that the inspection report at the end of the first tenancy and the second tenancy agreement records that all three smoke alarms were new at the start of the second tenancy, but the two smoke alarms in the upstairs hallway were not new and they kept going off.
The tenants say they raised this issue with Abhilash in an email 12 December 2022 telling him the smoke alarm needed to be looked at. This property manager told the tenants to get a new battery.
The tenants did not purchase and install a new battery as they thought the new smoke alarms were not battery operated, that they had only been installed 6 months ago and therefore were faulty.
I find that the tenants have not proven their claim on balance as they confirmed they did not follow the landlord’s reasonable instruction to try replacing the battery first and if that did not resolve the problem, then he would have the alarm investigated for potential faults.
Tenants are responsible for the cost of replacing smoke alarm batteries that run flat during the tenancy. The tenants failed to discharge this obligation.
I dismiss the tenants claims for compensation for the stress and inconvenience of the smoke alarm randomly going off for the reasons outlined above. D. Heat pump leak
The tenants say a new heat pump was installed on 4 February 2023, and from the day after it was installed it was leaking outside really badly.
The tenants produced a video of the issue, which shows the leak was significant and should have been investigated and remediated by the company that installed the unit.
The tenants say that Abhilash, the property manager, sent them an email asking for permission for a contractor to come and look at the heat pump issue and the rangehood. The tenants confirmed that a contractor came but only looked at the rangehood and told tenants he was there to fix a broken rangehood that was not broken. They say this contractor glanced at the heat pump, but never fixed it. After that the landlord never sent anyone else out to investigate or remedy the issue. As a result, the tenants say they couldn’t use the heat pump as every time they did it leaked badly and they were concerned about electrical issues being caused by the volume of water pouring out of the unit.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to investigate and repair the heat pump issue for a period of 62 weeks and 3 days, from 4 March 2024 to 14 May 2024. I award the tenants compensation of $5.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants. This is a total rent rebate of $327.14 ($5 x 62 weeks= $325.00 plus $5.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 3= $2.14).
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. Failure to comply with statutory obligations in relation to buildings, health, and safety
The tenants claim the landlord failed to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises as it knew the LPG bottle was placed unlawfully and failed to move it or to silicone up the window that was within 100 metres of the LPG bottle and the power supply for the hot water was located outside of the property. LPG Bottle location
The landlord was notified by email on 14 June 2021 by Genesis that the location of the LPG bottle was noncompliant, and the landlord needed to take action to remedy the breach of the LPGA Code of Practice and relevant health and safety regulations. The email states: “Good morning At the latest delivery to your location at 28 Stratford Road, our LPG driver has informed us of a compliance issue requiring attention. Our driver has noted there is a window which can be opened next to the bottles. There can be no openings within 1 metre of the bottles. More information can be found in the attached LPG Code of Practice (and key information noted below). Our top priority is to ensure safety for you, our staff and the public, and in order for us to do this we must comply with the LPGA Code of Practise 2019 and relevant Health and Safety Regulations. Our drivers are trained and know these regulations and inform us when LPG installations require attention. Action - Before your next LPG delivery, please arrange for this to be sealed around with silicon so it is airtight. Alternatively you may be able to move the bottles to the right so they are out of zone. Genesis provided photographs and charts and noted that the Regulations 3.3 “clearance around cylinders” states Separation distance from LPG cylinders shall comply with the relevant HS regulations and: up to 100kg can be installed within one metre of a building (up against the wall) provided there are no openings in the building below the top of the cylinders and within one metre of the cylinders”.
The email has a photograph attached that shows the cylinder is located very close to an opening window and an excerpt from the LPGA Code of Practice that Genesis refers to.
The tenants say that this non-compliance and safety issue was never investigated or remedied by the landlord.
The landlord says the placement of LPG bottles is a key factor assessed for a Certificate of Compliance (COC) in New Zealand. A COC ensures that the LPG installation and storage meet safety standards and that the premise has a COC.
The landlord also gave evidence that on 13 June 2021, a plumber and gas fitter was sent to reset the gas fitting infinity unit to get it going, and neither of these professionals raised any concern with the location of the gas bottle.
The landlord had no other explanation for why it failed to investigate and remedy a clear breach of its health and safety obligation to the tenants.
I find that the tenants have proven on balance that the landlord intentionally failed to remedy a breach of s45(1)(c) of the RTA and in doing so put the tenants healthy and safety at risk for the duration of their two tenancies, being a period of 164 weeks, from 23 March 2021 to 14 May 2024. I award the tenants compensation of $10.00 per week for the stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants. This is a total rent rebate of $1,640.00 ($10 x 164 weeks).
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. Power for hot water located outside of property
The tenants the power supply box for the hot water was located outside the property and needed to be investigated and remedied. They proved they had to run an extension cord outside the garage window to power the hot water supply.
The landlord gave no explanation for why it failed to investigate and remedy a clear breach of its obligation to the tenants.
I find that the tenants have proven on balance that the landlord intentionally failed to remedy a breach of s45(1)(c) of the RTA and in doing so put the tenants healthy and safety at risk for the duration of their two tenancies, being a period of 164 weeks, from 23 March 2021 to 14 May 2024. I award the tenants compensation of $10.00 per week for the stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants. This is a total rent rebate of $1,640.00 ($10 x 164 weeks).
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
[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). Pope Reupena Mita and Shanghai Imelda Nuuausala considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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 by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenants first tenancy commenced on 23 March 2021. The landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The tenants second tenancy commenced on 13 June 2022. The landlord had 120 days to ensure the premise complied with the healthy homes standards, being 11 October 2022.
The tenants say the landlord failed to comply with the heating standard from 11 October 2022 to 4 February 2023 when a new heat pump was installed that met the kW requirement for the main lounge area. Prior to this, there was a non- complaint heat pump that was supposed to be topped up with the installation of a wall heater. This wall heater was never installed. The landlord eventually decided to install the new and complaint heat pump instead.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
In this case I have determined that the landlord has intentionally failed to install a wall heater to supplement the old non complaint heat pump or to replace it with a new and complaint heat pump by 11 October 2022 and it confirms it did not. In doing so, I find Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Molly / Shaji Mathai/ Varghese committed an intentional and unlawful act.
Considering the factors set out above, I have determined that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages for this breach, having regard to the property owners’ intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the tenant, and the public interest as follows (See section 109(3) RTA): a. On the balance of probabilities, the evidence suggests the property owners knew about non complaint heating source in the lounge and chose not address this in the statutorily required timeframe; b. The tenants continued to raise the issue and nothing was done to remediate it; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach of the landlord’s healthy homes heating standard compliance obligation; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their healthy homes heating standard compliance obligations.
The quantum of exemplary damages for this breach will be addressed below, at the end of the breaches of s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. Exemplary damages for all the s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed three intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA, one of s45(1)(bb) and two of s45(1)(c) of the RTA. These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants experiencing considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities they were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief for these plights the tenants endured.
I find the landlord has committed these six unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $4,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being two thirds of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Failure to lodge the bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 tenants proved they electronically completed the bond form and signed it electronically and emailed it to the landlord. They requested a form signed by all parties. They never got this.
The tenants received a confirmation letter from the Bond Centre confirming the bond was lodged on 2 August 2022.
The landlord produced bank transfer record its says proves it lodged the bond on 1 July 2022. It also confirmed the tenants paid their bond, half on 15 June and half on 16 June 2022. The landlord was therefore required to pay the bond to the Bond Centre by 9 July 2022.
The Bond Centre has confirmed to me that it received a bulk electronic payment of bonds from the landlord on 26 July 2022, and that all these payments were verified on 2 August 2022. That is why the tenants received a confirmation letter dated 2 August 2022.
The evidence obtained from the Bond Centre proves the landlord has failed to lodge the tenants’ bond within the statutorily required timeframe. In doing so, the landlord has 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful, but not intentionally. The landlord’s bulk payment system resulted in the late lodgement of the bond and it was unaware that this had occurred as it had been sent to its finance team to process well within the statutory timeframe. Therefore, I cannot award any exemplary damages as I am not 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

OTHER CLAIMS

Falsification of bond forms

The tenants also say the landlord fraudulently altered the bond lodgement forms they sent to the landlord as it differs to the one the Bond Centre was sent by the landlord. The tenants are claiming compensation for having their signatures falsified. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation for falsification of documents/signatures and dismisses this claim. Reimbursement of filing fees
Because both the tenants and the landlord have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed both parties filing fees. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names 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.
I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017932 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017932 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER CLAIMS