What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5025325 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 5025325?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025325?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025325?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11527077-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5025325 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 5025325?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025325?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025325?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11527077-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5025325 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5025325 — net $727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$700.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$727.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Mills Gibbon And Co Limited Casey Tararo must pay [The tenant/s] $727.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 17 March 2023 and ended on 18 August 2024. [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that they had ongoing issues with a kitchen rangehood, kitchen lights and the carpet.
The tenant’s evidence was presented in a manner which made the detail of the claim hard to follow. A brief timeline, which I have ascertained through a combination of the landlord’s and tenant’s evidence is as follows; Rangehood 14 June 2023 – tenant tells the landlord that the kitchen rangehood is not working. 5 July 2023 – the tenant reminds the landlord that the rangehood is still not working. 5 July 2023 -the electrician attends and finds the rangehood in good working order but says that the unit is old. 18 September 2023 – the landlord confirms that the rangehood is working during the course of an inspection. 21 March 2024 – the landlord finds, during an inspection, that the rangehood no longer works at all. August 2024 – The unit is repaired. Kitchen lights May 2024 -The tenant says that they discovered that the kitchen lights were not working. July – lights repaired. Carpet The tenant said that the carpets smelt, but did not pursue the landlord to have the matter dealt with and that part of the claim is dismissed.
A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord’s obligation to repair is not absolute. The landlord does not have to be aware of unobservable defects. A tenant must notify a landlord as soon as possible after discovery of a defect . The landlord must carry out repairs within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair.
The evidence indicates that whilst the tenant did tell the landlord of the need for repair in June 2023, the initial advice from the electrician was that the unit was working. In light of that professional advice, I consider that the landlord’s failure to take action at that time was acceptable.
The landlord subsequently became aware that the unit no longer worked on 21 March 2024. The unit was not then repaired until August 2024 (neither party was aware of the precise date). Having been informed of the issue on 21 March 2024, was a delay of more than 4 months reasonable?
The delay was not acceptable. It is understandable that there can be a delay in having a tradesperson attend, but I do not consider four months to be an acceptable delay. 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.
The term “intentional” requires a landlord to turn their mind to the issue. In this case the tenant has raised the issue with the landlord and the landlord has simply not taken any reasonable steps. It is in the best interests of tenants to have landlords act promptly where defects are reported. One of the tenants suffered from asthma. There being no rangehood to disperse smoke and cooking smells, the tenants would often have to leave exterior doors open. During colder months this had an adverse effect on the tenant.
The tenant refers to an unknown person gaining access briefly to the premises. The doors were not open at that time and I do not take this issue into account in considering the level of exemplary damages.
I consider that one month would have been a reasonable period for the landlord to have a contractor attend. That leaves a further three months where steps had not been taken and I consider that to be an aggravating factor.
Having weighed all of the relevant factors I consider that an award of $700.00 to be appropriate. This is an award at the lower end of the scale, but it is a reflection of the brief period where the tenants have proven their inconvenience and the landlord’s failure to act.
The tenants discovered that the kitchen lights were not working and advised the landlord on 21 May 2024.Neither party could recall precisely when the lights were fixed, but thought that it was in July 2024. The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. Given the vague nature of the evidence, I am not persuaded that the tenants have shown that it is more likely than not that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises within a reasonable time frame and the claim in relation to the lights is dismissed.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has substantially succeeded in the hearing and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in the hearing and the landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5025325 — net $727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$700.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$727.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Mills Gibbon And Co Limited Casey Tararo must pay [The tenant/s] $727.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 17 March 2023 and ended on 18 August 2024. [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that they had ongoing issues with a kitchen rangehood, kitchen lights and the carpet.
The tenant’s evidence was presented in a manner which made the detail of the claim hard to follow. A brief timeline, which I have ascertained through a combination of the landlord’s and tenant’s evidence is as follows; Rangehood 14 June 2023 – tenant tells the landlord that the kitchen rangehood is not working. 5 July 2023 – the tenant reminds the landlord that the rangehood is still not working. 5 July 2023 -the electrician attends and finds the rangehood in good working order but says that the unit is old. 18 September 2023 – the landlord confirms that the rangehood is working during the course of an inspection. 21 March 2024 – the landlord finds, during an inspection, that the rangehood no longer works at all. August 2024 – The unit is repaired. Kitchen lights May 2024 -The tenant says that they discovered that the kitchen lights were not working. July – lights repaired. Carpet The tenant said that the carpets smelt, but did not pursue the landlord to have the matter dealt with and that part of the claim is dismissed.
A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord’s obligation to repair is not absolute. The landlord does not have to be aware of unobservable defects. A tenant must notify a landlord as soon as possible after discovery of a defect . The landlord must carry out repairs within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair.
The evidence indicates that whilst the tenant did tell the landlord of the need for repair in June 2023, the initial advice from the electrician was that the unit was working. In light of that professional advice, I consider that the landlord’s failure to take action at that time was acceptable.
The landlord subsequently became aware that the unit no longer worked on 21 March 2024. The unit was not then repaired until August 2024 (neither party was aware of the precise date). Having been informed of the issue on 21 March 2024, was a delay of more than 4 months reasonable?
The delay was not acceptable. It is understandable that there can be a delay in having a tradesperson attend, but I do not consider four months to be an acceptable delay. 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.
The term “intentional” requires a landlord to turn their mind to the issue. In this case the tenant has raised the issue with the landlord and the landlord has simply not taken any reasonable steps. It is in the best interests of tenants to have landlords act promptly where defects are reported. One of the tenants suffered from asthma. There being no rangehood to disperse smoke and cooking smells, the tenants would often have to leave exterior doors open. During colder months this had an adverse effect on the tenant.
The tenant refers to an unknown person gaining access briefly to the premises. The doors were not open at that time and I do not take this issue into account in considering the level of exemplary damages.
I consider that one month would have been a reasonable period for the landlord to have a contractor attend. That leaves a further three months where steps had not been taken and I consider that to be an aggravating factor.
Having weighed all of the relevant factors I consider that an award of $700.00 to be appropriate. This is an award at the lower end of the scale, but it is a reflection of the brief period where the tenants have proven their inconvenience and the landlord’s failure to act.
The tenants discovered that the kitchen lights were not working and advised the landlord on 21 May 2024.Neither party could recall precisely when the lights were fixed, but thought that it was in July 2024. The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. Given the vague nature of the evidence, I am not persuaded that the tenants have shown that it is more likely than not that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises within a reasonable time frame and the claim in relation to the lights is dismissed.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has substantially succeeded in the hearing and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in the hearing and the landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025325 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025325 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions