What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050241 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5050241?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050241?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11497372-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050241 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5050241?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050241?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11497372-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

35 Rountree Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5050241 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050241 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Repair & Maintenance	$2,000.00	Repair & Maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Rempstone Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Repair & Maintenance $2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $2,027.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,027.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have made an application against Rempstone Property Management Ltd (Rempstone), as landlord.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants. Therefore, it cannot make an order either for or against a property manager unless they are a ‘landlord’.
The owner of the property will often be the grantor of the tenancy, and therefore the landlord, even where a property manager acts on their behalf. However, this will not always be the case, as the RTA explicitly recognises that the owner and landlord may not be one and the same. For example, ss 5(1)(n) and 51(2)(d) refer the "landlord or owner", and ss 5(1)(s) and s 51(2)(c) deal with circumstances where the landlord is not the owner.
An agent who puts their unqualified name on a contract will usually be personally liable, even if the other party knows they are acting as an agent. Where the existence of a principal is not disclosed, the agent will be a party to the contract.
In Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd [2011] DCR 420, the agent took over the tenancy from a previous agent. A new tenancy agreement was prepared, which named the agent as landlord and required the tenant to pay rent to the agent. The Court considered several factors in deciding the agent was liable under the tenancy agreement: the agreement named the agent as landlord, a bond lodgement letter from the Bond Centre referred to the agent as landlord, the agent was involved in inspections, the agent dealt with the tenant's inquiries and complaints, and the agent issued a termination notice.
In this case the tenants entered into a Tenancy Agreement with Sunshine Housing Ltd in October 2023. There was no suggestion that Sunshine Housing was a property manager or an agent for an owner.
On 10 June 2024 Rempstone sent an email to the tenants advising that it was the “new property management company for 35 Rountree St”. Rent payments were to be made to Rempstone and the email recorded “please contact the property manager for any maintenance requirements”. In a text to the tenants on 7 August 2024, a representative of Rempstone said, “I have sent you an email. Landlord’s name: Rempstone Property Management.”
There was no mention of the owner of the property in either the email introducing Rempstone or its text confirming the landlord. The tenant does not know who the owner is and has no way of identifying them. Applying the Mumby decision, I find that Rempstone was the landlord.
Further, Rempstone provided evidence that the owner was overseas for more than 21 days throughout September 2024, when most of the issue came to a head. So, Rempstone would have had all the rights and obligations of a landlord under s16A(5) Residential Tenancies Act, in any event.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under that section, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain is not absolute. A tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of the need for repair. A landlord must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair.
The tenants claimed compensation for a range of alleged maintenance items. These were, generally, modest in the context of issues which the Tribunal sees.
The tenants established that there was unreasonable delay by the landlord to investigate and repair a bathroom light. There was no bathroom light for three months from June 2024 (after the tenant raised the issue and sent 14-day notices). The tenants sent two 14-day notices in August and September 2024 regarding the dishwasher not working which were not acted on.
There was a small patch of mould which keep recurring on one of the bedroom ceilings. This was raised with the landlord throughout the tenancy and dismissed. Given the isolated location of the mould patch on a ceiling, this required investigation, but the landlord told the tenant to keep cleaning it.
There were also issues with the extractor fan, garage door and a power circuit. At the hearing, the landlord acknowledged the issues and recognised that it didn’t “achieve what was necessary for the tenant”.
As noted, the maintenance required was modest, but it was within the landlord’s obligation to repair and there was a pattern of ignoring tenant requests and delays in addressing issues. The tenants argued that they did not get the full value for the $700 per week they were paying. I accept that and award global compensation of $2,000.
I acknowledge that the landlord attempted to complete repairs and maintenance but was constrained by instructions from the property owner. In Tenant v Holmwood Real Estate Ltd t/a Harcourts [2021] NZTT 4312442 the Tribunal noted: [24] To property management companies, the Tribunal says this: be careful of which landlord clients you choose to be the agent for. If a landlord refuses to comply with the statutory requirements around the provision of healthy homes and repairs and maintenance, consider whether to retain them. A landlord includes the agent of a landlord. And while an agent is not generally liable for the actions of the principal, that does not protect property management companies in all situations.
As the tenants were the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee and grated suppression of their details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050241 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Repair & Maintenance	$2,000.00	Repair & Maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Rempstone Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Repair & Maintenance $2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $2,027.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,027.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have made an application against Rempstone Property Management Ltd (Rempstone), as landlord.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants. Therefore, it cannot make an order either for or against a property manager unless they are a ‘landlord’.
The owner of the property will often be the grantor of the tenancy, and therefore the landlord, even where a property manager acts on their behalf. However, this will not always be the case, as the RTA explicitly recognises that the owner and landlord may not be one and the same. For example, ss 5(1)(n) and 51(2)(d) refer the "landlord or owner", and ss 5(1)(s) and s 51(2)(c) deal with circumstances where the landlord is not the owner.
An agent who puts their unqualified name on a contract will usually be personally liable, even if the other party knows they are acting as an agent. Where the existence of a principal is not disclosed, the agent will be a party to the contract.
In Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd [2011] DCR 420, the agent took over the tenancy from a previous agent. A new tenancy agreement was prepared, which named the agent as landlord and required the tenant to pay rent to the agent. The Court considered several factors in deciding the agent was liable under the tenancy agreement: the agreement named the agent as landlord, a bond lodgement letter from the Bond Centre referred to the agent as landlord, the agent was involved in inspections, the agent dealt with the tenant's inquiries and complaints, and the agent issued a termination notice.
In this case the tenants entered into a Tenancy Agreement with Sunshine Housing Ltd in October 2023. There was no suggestion that Sunshine Housing was a property manager or an agent for an owner.
On 10 June 2024 Rempstone sent an email to the tenants advising that it was the “new property management company for 35 Rountree St”. Rent payments were to be made to Rempstone and the email recorded “please contact the property manager for any maintenance requirements”. In a text to the tenants on 7 August 2024, a representative of Rempstone said, “I have sent you an email. Landlord’s name: Rempstone Property Management.”
There was no mention of the owner of the property in either the email introducing Rempstone or its text confirming the landlord. The tenant does not know who the owner is and has no way of identifying them. Applying the Mumby decision, I find that Rempstone was the landlord.
Further, Rempstone provided evidence that the owner was overseas for more than 21 days throughout September 2024, when most of the issue came to a head. So, Rempstone would have had all the rights and obligations of a landlord under s16A(5) Residential Tenancies Act, in any event.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under that section, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain is not absolute. A tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of the need for repair. A landlord must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair.
The tenants claimed compensation for a range of alleged maintenance items. These were, generally, modest in the context of issues which the Tribunal sees.
The tenants established that there was unreasonable delay by the landlord to investigate and repair a bathroom light. There was no bathroom light for three months from June 2024 (after the tenant raised the issue and sent 14-day notices). The tenants sent two 14-day notices in August and September 2024 regarding the dishwasher not working which were not acted on.
There was a small patch of mould which keep recurring on one of the bedroom ceilings. This was raised with the landlord throughout the tenancy and dismissed. Given the isolated location of the mould patch on a ceiling, this required investigation, but the landlord told the tenant to keep cleaning it.
There were also issues with the extractor fan, garage door and a power circuit. At the hearing, the landlord acknowledged the issues and recognised that it didn’t “achieve what was necessary for the tenant”.
As noted, the maintenance required was modest, but it was within the landlord’s obligation to repair and there was a pattern of ignoring tenant requests and delays in addressing issues. The tenants argued that they did not get the full value for the $700 per week they were paying. I accept that and award global compensation of $2,000.
I acknowledge that the landlord attempted to complete repairs and maintenance but was constrained by instructions from the property owner. In Tenant v Holmwood Real Estate Ltd t/a Harcourts [2021] NZTT 4312442 the Tribunal noted: [24] To property management companies, the Tribunal says this: be careful of which landlord clients you choose to be the agent for. If a landlord refuses to comply with the statutory requirements around the provision of healthy homes and repairs and maintenance, consider whether to retain them. A landlord includes the agent of a landlord. And while an agent is not generally liable for the actions of the principal, that does not protect property management companies in all situations.
As the tenants were the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee and grated suppression of their details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050241 — Property damage at 35 Rountree Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050241 — Property damage at 35 Rountree Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions