What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5056168 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 5056168?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056168?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11471410-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5056168 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 5056168?

Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056168?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11471410-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

155 Hutchinsons Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5056168 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056168 — net $3,627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,627.00
Bond	$909.40
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,627.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For Jaswant Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $3,627.00 immediately being exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Exemplary damages $3,600.00 Total award $3,627.00 Bond $909.40 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,627.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $909.40 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
I dismiss all the landlords’ claims.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a cross application. The landlord filed an application on 2 October 2024 claiming for cleaning costs, water bill, repairs to a handrail and reinstating the grass.
The tenants filed an application on 1 November 2024 claiming that the landlord had breached Healthy Homes Standards, had a non-compliant and dangerous internal balustrade, and there was a failure of the landlord to maintain the property.
I have dismissed all the landlord claims due to a lack of evidence, of the home not being reasonable clean and tidy, that there was damage to the grass and balustrade/handrail. Furthermore, there was no proof that the water bill was during the tenancy. Tenants’ claims:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
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. Balustrade
The tenants had two preschool children at the commencement of the tenancy. The balustrade around the staircase in the home exceeded 100mm gap and posed a clear risk of falling for the young children. The tenants complained to the landlord and were given permission to install a trellis surround around the staircase and a gate at the top of the stairs.
Safety is the primary concern and prerequisite for choosing a balustrade and handrail. The New Zealand Building Code Regulations in clause F4 sets out the mandatory provisions to safeguard people from falling.
Barriers, with parallel posts in areas likely to be frequented by children under 6 years of age must have a gap that must not exceed 100mm. The gaps between the posts were significant and a child could easily have fallen through the posts onto the stairs below.
The balustrade was non-compliant with the NZ Building Codes and posed a danger to young children.
The landlord has breached their obligations to comply with the New Zealand Building Codes relating to balustrades. I find they have 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.
There is public interest in landlords adhering to building codes, particularly relating to safety.
The tenants had raised the concern with the landlord, and they were given permission to erect a trellis and gate, at their cost to protect their children while living in the house rather than the landlord remedying the non-compliant balustrade.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage 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 moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
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).
The tenants said the property was damp, mouldy, and smelt. One of the tenants put his clothing in a wardrobe in their downstairs bedroom and had to throw the clothing out due to the mould that developed on them.
The tenants described mould on walls and ceilings, and a constant leaking ranch slider in bad weather. They complained to the landlord, but no repairs were carried out on the leaking ranch slider or mould.
The landlord sought a Healthy Homes Assessment to be carried out in 2021/2022. The tenants were at home when the assessor came to do the inspection. The assessor advised the tenants that the property needed a moisture blanket put over the exposed earth ground to help with moisture ingress.
The tenants described the lower ground floor of the property as their bedroom and study. One door in this room opened up straight onto the dirt ground under the house.
The tenants followed up with the landlord, about the installation of the moisture blanket to reduce the moisture in the room and house. The moisture blanket was never installed, and the Healthy Homes Assessment was never made available to the tenants or the property manager.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has failed to comply with Healthy Homes standards.
In addition to the moisture ingress and non-compliant balustrade the tenants told the Tribunal about other maintenance issues such as: -That outside the front entry there were slippery tiles that appeared to be inside tiles and not outside tiles. They would tell visitors if it was raining to be careful on the tiles. Eventually they put astroturf over the tiles to protect people slipping over on the tiles. -Two of their children required medical attention at a local Accident and Emergency facility after they fell threw the rotten wooden deck at the front of the property. One of the tenants put plyboard over the deck until the deck was eventually replaced. -The fence around the front of the house blew over in bad weather. The tenants complained on 30 May 2024 and at the end of their tenancy on 18 August 2024 it still had not been fixed. -The wet carpet in their bedroom from leaks due to the leaking ranch slider were never addressed. -The oven broke and needed to be replaced. The tenants went at least 6 weeks without cooking facilities at the house. -Later the oven needed the seals to be replaced as it was not closing properly. The guttering needed to be cleared and a faulty light switch in the hallway needed to be fixed. The tenants complained about these maintenance issues on 8 April 2024 and the work was completed on 24-30 July 2024. The landlord claimed that they had difficulty obtaining access to the property, which meant the work took a while to get done. The tenants dispute that they hindered access.
The tenants provided photos of the wet carpet, leaking ranch slider, non- compliant balustrade, broken fence, slippery tiles, and deck. The tenants provided emails between themselves and the landlord seeking repairs and maintenance to be done.
The landlord confirmed the tenants complains about some of the issues but appeared to have a lack of complete records to refer to in the hearing.
I find Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For Jaswant Singh 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord has not complied with their obligations as a landlord in terms of maintenance, compliances with the building code and healthy homes standards required under the RTA.
As a result, the tenants have been put in a position where they have legitimate safety concerns for themselves and their young family. Two of their young children were injured by falling through rotten wooden decking. The balustrade was dangerous and a potential fall risk to their children.
The maintenance was not addressed in a timely fashion and not at all on some occasions. The landlord was aware in 2021/22 that a moisture blanket was required to be installed for compliance with the obligations under the Healthy Homes Standard under the RTA, yet 3 years later the work was still not carried out.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord has acted intentionally and that the tenants should be awarded exemplary damages of $3600.00 for the landlord breach. This award is to reflect the number of breaches of the landlord obligations under s45 RTA.
The tenants have applied for suppression of their names and identifying details and as they have been successful, I will have granted suppression.
There is a remaining sum of $909.40 at the Bond centre of the tenant’s bond. The remaining bond is to be refunded to the tenants immediately from the bond centre.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056168 — net $3,627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,627.00
Bond	$909.40
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,627.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For Jaswant Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $3,627.00 immediately being exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Exemplary damages $3,600.00 Total award $3,627.00 Bond $909.40 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,627.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $909.40 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
I dismiss all the landlords’ claims.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a cross application. The landlord filed an application on 2 October 2024 claiming for cleaning costs, water bill, repairs to a handrail and reinstating the grass.
The tenants filed an application on 1 November 2024 claiming that the landlord had breached Healthy Homes Standards, had a non-compliant and dangerous internal balustrade, and there was a failure of the landlord to maintain the property.
I have dismissed all the landlord claims due to a lack of evidence, of the home not being reasonable clean and tidy, that there was damage to the grass and balustrade/handrail. Furthermore, there was no proof that the water bill was during the tenancy. Tenants’ claims:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
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. Balustrade
The tenants had two preschool children at the commencement of the tenancy. The balustrade around the staircase in the home exceeded 100mm gap and posed a clear risk of falling for the young children. The tenants complained to the landlord and were given permission to install a trellis surround around the staircase and a gate at the top of the stairs.
Safety is the primary concern and prerequisite for choosing a balustrade and handrail. The New Zealand Building Code Regulations in clause F4 sets out the mandatory provisions to safeguard people from falling.
Barriers, with parallel posts in areas likely to be frequented by children under 6 years of age must have a gap that must not exceed 100mm. The gaps between the posts were significant and a child could easily have fallen through the posts onto the stairs below.
The balustrade was non-compliant with the NZ Building Codes and posed a danger to young children.
The landlord has breached their obligations to comply with the New Zealand Building Codes relating to balustrades. I find they have 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.
There is public interest in landlords adhering to building codes, particularly relating to safety.
The tenants had raised the concern with the landlord, and they were given permission to erect a trellis and gate, at their cost to protect their children while living in the house rather than the landlord remedying the non-compliant balustrade.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage 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 moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
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).
The tenants said the property was damp, mouldy, and smelt. One of the tenants put his clothing in a wardrobe in their downstairs bedroom and had to throw the clothing out due to the mould that developed on them.
The tenants described mould on walls and ceilings, and a constant leaking ranch slider in bad weather. They complained to the landlord, but no repairs were carried out on the leaking ranch slider or mould.
The landlord sought a Healthy Homes Assessment to be carried out in 2021/2022. The tenants were at home when the assessor came to do the inspection. The assessor advised the tenants that the property needed a moisture blanket put over the exposed earth ground to help with moisture ingress.
The tenants described the lower ground floor of the property as their bedroom and study. One door in this room opened up straight onto the dirt ground under the house.
The tenants followed up with the landlord, about the installation of the moisture blanket to reduce the moisture in the room and house. The moisture blanket was never installed, and the Healthy Homes Assessment was never made available to the tenants or the property manager.
In this case I have determined that the landlord has failed to comply with Healthy Homes standards.
In addition to the moisture ingress and non-compliant balustrade the tenants told the Tribunal about other maintenance issues such as: -That outside the front entry there were slippery tiles that appeared to be inside tiles and not outside tiles. They would tell visitors if it was raining to be careful on the tiles. Eventually they put astroturf over the tiles to protect people slipping over on the tiles. -Two of their children required medical attention at a local Accident and Emergency facility after they fell threw the rotten wooden deck at the front of the property. One of the tenants put plyboard over the deck until the deck was eventually replaced. -The fence around the front of the house blew over in bad weather. The tenants complained on 30 May 2024 and at the end of their tenancy on 18 August 2024 it still had not been fixed. -The wet carpet in their bedroom from leaks due to the leaking ranch slider were never addressed. -The oven broke and needed to be replaced. The tenants went at least 6 weeks without cooking facilities at the house. -Later the oven needed the seals to be replaced as it was not closing properly. The guttering needed to be cleared and a faulty light switch in the hallway needed to be fixed. The tenants complained about these maintenance issues on 8 April 2024 and the work was completed on 24-30 July 2024. The landlord claimed that they had difficulty obtaining access to the property, which meant the work took a while to get done. The tenants dispute that they hindered access.
The tenants provided photos of the wet carpet, leaking ranch slider, non- compliant balustrade, broken fence, slippery tiles, and deck. The tenants provided emails between themselves and the landlord seeking repairs and maintenance to be done.
The landlord confirmed the tenants complains about some of the issues but appeared to have a lack of complete records to refer to in the hearing.
I find Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For Jaswant Singh 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord has not complied with their obligations as a landlord in terms of maintenance, compliances with the building code and healthy homes standards required under the RTA.
As a result, the tenants have been put in a position where they have legitimate safety concerns for themselves and their young family. Two of their young children were injured by falling through rotten wooden decking. The balustrade was dangerous and a potential fall risk to their children.
The maintenance was not addressed in a timely fashion and not at all on some occasions. The landlord was aware in 2021/22 that a moisture blanket was required to be installed for compliance with the obligations under the Healthy Homes Standard under the RTA, yet 3 years later the work was still not carried out.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord has acted intentionally and that the tenants should be awarded exemplary damages of $3600.00 for the landlord breach. This award is to reflect the number of breaches of the landlord obligations under s45 RTA.
The tenants have applied for suppression of their names and identifying details and as they have been successful, I will have granted suppression.
There is a remaining sum of $909.40 at the Bond centre of the tenant’s bond. The remaining bond is to be refunded to the tenants immediately from the bond centre.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056168 — Exemplary damages at 155 Hutchinsons Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056168 — Exemplary damages at 155 Hutchinsons Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014

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