What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5070327 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 5070327?

Compensation: kitchen tap, bathroom…: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5070327?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5070327?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11414293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5070327 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 5070327?

Compensation: kitchen tap, bathroom…: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5070327?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5070327?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11414293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

72 Warwick Street, Wilton, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5070327 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5070327 — net $2,877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: kitchen tap, bathroom tap, gutters	$850.00	kitchen tap, bathroom tap, gutters
Exemplary damages: no smoke alarm downstairs and gutters	$2,000.00	no smoke alarm downstairs and gutters
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,877.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,877.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Kauri Property Investments Limited And Stephen Davidson must pay [The tenant/s] $2,877.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager and the company directors for the company that owns the tenancy premises attended for the landlord. One tenant represented all the tenants. I note there was a file note that one tenant was too stressed to pursue the claim, but I have not removed her name because of the landlord’s claims against all the tenants.
The tenants filed an application for work orders, compensation, and exemplary damages during the tenancy. The hearing had to be adjourned. Consequently, the tenancy is ending by agreement in two days time and the work orders are no longer required. Instead I have considered whether the tenants have proved there was outstanding maintenance and whether compensation is appropriate. The landlord filed an application for just over $5800 in compensation but reduced the claim to $235 during the hearing, plus the property manager’s fee. The landlord also asked for orders relating to breaches during the tenancy. The questions I have to decide include: • Have the tenants proved the fridge caused the high power bills? • Should the tenants pay for the electrician? • Did the landlord breach the obligation to repair and maintain? • Was there a breach of the requirements for smoke alarms? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Have the tenants proved the fridge caused the high power bills?

In July, about 5 months into the tenancy, the tenant emailed the landlord concerned that their power bills were much higher than expected. The tenants initially thought maybe they were paying for someone else’s power, or that there was an electrical fault. They followed up by email and then served a 14 day notice on 31 July 2024. The landlord asked for a meeting with all the flatmates present and agreed the landlord would arrange for an electrician to investigate. On 5 September an electrician reported back that there were no obvious concerns with the wiring, and it was likely that tenant use was to blame for the high bills. The email from the electrician was forwarded to the tenants on 5 September.
At around the same time the tenants changed power companies and the landlord replaced an older fridge with a new one. The power bills decreased significantly. The tenants deduced that the old fridge provided by the landlord was the cause of the high bills and they have claimed compensation from the landlord. The landlord does not agree to the claim, preferring the electrician’s explanation that the power use was reasonable for a flat of five in winter.
This is the tenants claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the independent electrician’s report. I do not find the fridge was the cause of the high power costs. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants pay for the electrician?

The landlord has claimed $235 which is what they paid the electrician. They said this turned out to be an unnecessary cost which the tenants should pay. I have considered the evidence and in particular the email chain. On 9 August the landlord emailed and said he would not be responding further regarding the power usage because they “deemed the power usage normal”. Subsequently, after a meeting with all the flatmates to discuss their concerns, the landlord arranged for the electrician to attend. It seems most likely to me the tenants raised genuine concerns at the meeting otherwise the landlord would not have changed his mind about investigating the issue. Accordingly I find the electrician’s bill to be a landlord maintenance expense. The claim against the tenants is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the obligation to repair and maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
It seems most likely to me the tenants raised issues at inspections. I know they sent emails, served a 14 day notice, and filed an application for work orders. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have read all the documents provided and considered the submissions. I am not persuaded: • there was a risk from the slip • the bubbling paint on the front of the house needed to be repaired during this tenancy • the bathroom floor was rotten • the bathroom sink was improperly installed • the mouldy silicon in the bathroom was a health risk • the mouldy silicon in the fridge was a health risk • the paths were a slipping hazard and these claims are dismissed.
I am persuaded the landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe to: • repair the leak into the garage • repair the broken window latches in the bathroom • paint the bathroom ceiling and these claims are dismissed.
I am persuaded the landlord knew the kitchen tap was loose, the bathroom tap dripped, and the gutters by the back door overflowed. These were not remedied until a plumber and a builder attended in November 2024. I find these issues would have been affected the tenants in their use of the property. The tenants have proved there was a loss of amenity from 1 August to 27 November and I allow compensation in the amount of $50 a week. In deciding this amount I have considered the weekly rent and the additional time spent communicating with the landlord.

Was there a breach of the requirements for smoke alarms?

The tenants claim there was no smoke alarm on the downstairs level. There is a bedroom on this level. The 2016 regulations for smoke alarms require smoke alarms within three meters of each bedroom and on each level of a multi story house. The landlord stated there was a smoke alarm downstairs at the start of the tenancy, but there is no written or photographic record of this. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission and find there was no smoke alarm downstairs. This is breach of section 45 RTA.
The landlord claimed the tenants had not replaced the batteries on an older type smoke alarm and this was a breach of their responsibilities under section 40 RTA. The tenants submitted that one of the smoke alarms was beeping and they removed the battery and let the landlord know. I note that since 2016 any older style smoke alarms should be replaced by the expiry date on the alarm. Any replacement smoke alarms are required to be photoelectric with a battery life of at least eight years. This means the tenants acted correctly in removing the battery and advising the landlord, who should have checked the expiry date. I find there was no breach here.

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under the HHS. The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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.
There is evidence the gutters over the back door were too low which meant water coming off the roof missed the spouting, especially with large amounts of rain. I find the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard. I note this was remedied after the tenants filed their application.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

In this case I have determined that there was a breach of the smoke alarm regulations and of the moisture ingress and drainage standard. Both of these are unlawful acts. The maximum exemplary damages that can be awarded is $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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 submitted that it intended to have a good relationship with the tenants, to communicate well, carry out maintenance in a timely manner, and provide a healthy and warm home. I find the breaches relating to the smoke alarm could have been avoided if the landlord had checked the alarms and recorded compliance. I find the gutters could have been treated as a maintenance issue had the landlord carried out repairs within a reasonable timeframe. These decisions by the landlord were deliberate, so I find the landlord committed the acts intentionally.
The effect for the tenants was a feeling of frustration because they were paying for a house that did not comply. It was also stressful dealing with the landlord. It is in tenants’ interests that houses are safe and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when they breach the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord. Other orders
The landlord’s claim the tenants pay the cost of the property manager appearing at the hearing is dismissed. This is not an order I can make. The property manager was named as the landlord on the tenancy agreement and was therefore required to attend the hearing. I note that Section 102 RTA restricts costs to legal representation and cases where the application was frivolous and vexatious, and neither apply here.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5070327 — net $2,877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: kitchen tap, bathroom tap, gutters	$850.00	kitchen tap, bathroom tap, gutters
Exemplary damages: no smoke alarm downstairs and gutters	$2,000.00	no smoke alarm downstairs and gutters
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,877.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,877.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Kauri Property Investments Limited And Stephen Davidson must pay [The tenant/s] $2,877.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager and the company directors for the company that owns the tenancy premises attended for the landlord. One tenant represented all the tenants. I note there was a file note that one tenant was too stressed to pursue the claim, but I have not removed her name because of the landlord’s claims against all the tenants.
The tenants filed an application for work orders, compensation, and exemplary damages during the tenancy. The hearing had to be adjourned. Consequently, the tenancy is ending by agreement in two days time and the work orders are no longer required. Instead I have considered whether the tenants have proved there was outstanding maintenance and whether compensation is appropriate. The landlord filed an application for just over $5800 in compensation but reduced the claim to $235 during the hearing, plus the property manager’s fee. The landlord also asked for orders relating to breaches during the tenancy. The questions I have to decide include: • Have the tenants proved the fridge caused the high power bills? • Should the tenants pay for the electrician? • Did the landlord breach the obligation to repair and maintain? • Was there a breach of the requirements for smoke alarms? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Have the tenants proved the fridge caused the high power bills?

In July, about 5 months into the tenancy, the tenant emailed the landlord concerned that their power bills were much higher than expected. The tenants initially thought maybe they were paying for someone else’s power, or that there was an electrical fault. They followed up by email and then served a 14 day notice on 31 July 2024. The landlord asked for a meeting with all the flatmates present and agreed the landlord would arrange for an electrician to investigate. On 5 September an electrician reported back that there were no obvious concerns with the wiring, and it was likely that tenant use was to blame for the high bills. The email from the electrician was forwarded to the tenants on 5 September.
At around the same time the tenants changed power companies and the landlord replaced an older fridge with a new one. The power bills decreased significantly. The tenants deduced that the old fridge provided by the landlord was the cause of the high bills and they have claimed compensation from the landlord. The landlord does not agree to the claim, preferring the electrician’s explanation that the power use was reasonable for a flat of five in winter.
This is the tenants claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the independent electrician’s report. I do not find the fridge was the cause of the high power costs. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants pay for the electrician?

The landlord has claimed $235 which is what they paid the electrician. They said this turned out to be an unnecessary cost which the tenants should pay. I have considered the evidence and in particular the email chain. On 9 August the landlord emailed and said he would not be responding further regarding the power usage because they “deemed the power usage normal”. Subsequently, after a meeting with all the flatmates to discuss their concerns, the landlord arranged for the electrician to attend. It seems most likely to me the tenants raised genuine concerns at the meeting otherwise the landlord would not have changed his mind about investigating the issue. Accordingly I find the electrician’s bill to be a landlord maintenance expense. The claim against the tenants is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the obligation to repair and maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
It seems most likely to me the tenants raised issues at inspections. I know they sent emails, served a 14 day notice, and filed an application for work orders. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have read all the documents provided and considered the submissions. I am not persuaded: • there was a risk from the slip • the bubbling paint on the front of the house needed to be repaired during this tenancy • the bathroom floor was rotten • the bathroom sink was improperly installed • the mouldy silicon in the bathroom was a health risk • the mouldy silicon in the fridge was a health risk • the paths were a slipping hazard and these claims are dismissed.
I am persuaded the landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe to: • repair the leak into the garage • repair the broken window latches in the bathroom • paint the bathroom ceiling and these claims are dismissed.
I am persuaded the landlord knew the kitchen tap was loose, the bathroom tap dripped, and the gutters by the back door overflowed. These were not remedied until a plumber and a builder attended in November 2024. I find these issues would have been affected the tenants in their use of the property. The tenants have proved there was a loss of amenity from 1 August to 27 November and I allow compensation in the amount of $50 a week. In deciding this amount I have considered the weekly rent and the additional time spent communicating with the landlord.

Was there a breach of the requirements for smoke alarms?

The tenants claim there was no smoke alarm on the downstairs level. There is a bedroom on this level. The 2016 regulations for smoke alarms require smoke alarms within three meters of each bedroom and on each level of a multi story house. The landlord stated there was a smoke alarm downstairs at the start of the tenancy, but there is no written or photographic record of this. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission and find there was no smoke alarm downstairs. This is breach of section 45 RTA.
The landlord claimed the tenants had not replaced the batteries on an older type smoke alarm and this was a breach of their responsibilities under section 40 RTA. The tenants submitted that one of the smoke alarms was beeping and they removed the battery and let the landlord know. I note that since 2016 any older style smoke alarms should be replaced by the expiry date on the alarm. Any replacement smoke alarms are required to be photoelectric with a battery life of at least eight years. This means the tenants acted correctly in removing the battery and advising the landlord, who should have checked the expiry date. I find there was no breach here.

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under the HHS. The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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.
There is evidence the gutters over the back door were too low which meant water coming off the roof missed the spouting, especially with large amounts of rain. I find the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard. I note this was remedied after the tenants filed their application.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

In this case I have determined that there was a breach of the smoke alarm regulations and of the moisture ingress and drainage standard. Both of these are unlawful acts. The maximum exemplary damages that can be awarded is $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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 submitted that it intended to have a good relationship with the tenants, to communicate well, carry out maintenance in a timely manner, and provide a healthy and warm home. I find the breaches relating to the smoke alarm could have been avoided if the landlord had checked the alarms and recorded compliance. I find the gutters could have been treated as a maintenance issue had the landlord carried out repairs within a reasonable timeframe. These decisions by the landlord were deliberate, so I find the landlord committed the acts intentionally.
The effect for the tenants was a feeling of frustration because they were paying for a house that did not comply. It was also stressful dealing with the landlord. It is in tenants’ interests that houses are safe and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when they breach the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord. Other orders
The landlord’s claim the tenants pay the cost of the property manager appearing at the hearing is dismissed. This is not an order I can make. The property manager was named as the landlord on the tenancy agreement and was therefore required to attend the hearing. I note that Section 102 RTA restricts costs to legal representation and cases where the application was frivolous and vexatious, and neither apply here.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5070327 — Smoke alarms at 72 Warwick Street, Wilton, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5070327 — Smoke alarms at 72 Warwick Street, Wilton, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants proved the fridge caused the high power bills?

Should the tenants pay for the electrician?

Did the landlord breach the obligation to repair and maintain?

Was there a breach of the requirements for smoke alarms?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants proved the fridge caused the high power bills?

Should the tenants pay for the electrician?

Did the landlord breach the obligation to repair and maintain?

Was there a breach of the requirements for smoke alarms?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions