What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5078910 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5078910?

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 5078910?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5078910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12009836-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5078910 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5078910?

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 5078910?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5078910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12009836-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13A Hayr Road, Three Kings, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5078910 — Exemplary damages

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
JCKNZ Investments Limited and Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited must immediately pay [the tenant] $8,714.29, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to immediately release the remaining bond of $1,898.92 to [the tenant]. DescriptionTenant Compensation for breach of work orders$500.00 Exemplary damages for non-compliance work orders$1,500.00 Exemplary damages for failing to maintain$2,500.00 Compensation for failing to maintain$3,538.29 Exemplary damages for failing to provide HHS info$250.00 Reimbursement of cost of window stays by consent Filing fee $399.00 $27.00 Total award$8,714.29

Reasons

ON RESERVED DECISION

This is a reserved decision. I heard this matter at the Auckland District Court on 28 February 2025 and 11 June 2025. Background The claims
The tenant claims: a. The landlords breached the work orders the Tribunal made in its decision dated 29 September 2023 to repair the spa bath, make the driveway gate usable by all, fix a water pipe, repair power switches, repair a ceiling, and have the premises assessed for HHS compliance by 13 October 2023. b. The landlords failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard or repair in respect to leaks. c.The landlord did not provide HHS information on request. d. The landlords failed to comply with building standards in respect to an unsafe upstairs glass panel. e. The landlords should compensate her for the cost of fixing a window she broke when attaching fasteners. The first hearing
At the first hearing, I heard evidence and submissions on this application at Auckland District Court on 28 February 2025
The tenant attended the hearing in person.
Ajit Gill of Barfoot & Thompson Limited attended for the landlords.
After the hearing, I reserved my decision and directed that Barfoot & Thompson Limited file and serve copies of its property inspection reports (including the inspection photographs) of the premises by 5:00PM on Friday 7 March 2025; and that the tenant could reply to the inspection reports by 5:00PM on Monday 10 March 2025.
After the hearing: a. On 1 March 2025, the tenant sent an email filing nine pages of text messages from August and September 2023 between the tenant flatmate and the owner. b. On 3 March 2025, I issued directions accepting the new evidence but directing that no further evidence was to be filed except as directed. c.On 7 March 2025, Barfoot filed its inspection reports for 24 January 2024, and 7 August 2024. (But not: the report for 22 April 2024 which recorded a “leak from roof” in the Downstairs Kitchen; nor the exit inspection report of 30 August 2024). d. On 10 March 2025, the tenant filed 177 pages of documents including: further submissions referring, among other things to garage leaks, being given only one garage remote, not being able to access the premises’ security cameras; and adding evidence including an undated statement from her flatmate; an allegation the HHS report writer was not properly qualified; and evidence about wet insulation and building compliance documents.
I decided it was not appropriate to proceed with a reserved decision in the circumstances without giving the landlords an opportunity to respond to the tenant’s further submissions and evidence. Therefore, I set the matter down for another hearing. The second hearing
Mr Gill, and the director of the landlord, Charles Karuna, attended the hearing in person.
The day before the second hearing, the tenant applied to attend the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal granted the tenant permission to attend by telephone. However, the tenant did not answer her telephone when the Tribunal called her. The hearing proceeded in her absence at about 9:45am.
At about 11:30am the Tribunal received a message that the tenant had a new contact telephone number. The Tribunal contacted the tenant on the new number and the tenant attended thereafter.
Because the Tribunal had heard evidence from Mr Karuna and Mr Gill the Tribunal gave the tenant the opportunity to have the matter heard at a later in front of a different adjudicator. However, the tenant wished to proceed with the matter because it had been going on for a long time and she wanted the case to be finalised.
The hearing then proceeded in the usual way. The issues for determination
The issues the Tribunal must decide are: a. Did the landlords breach the Tribunal’s work orders? b. Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises in respect to leaks? c.Did the landlords fail to provide HHS information on request? d. Did the landlords fail to comply with building standards for window safety? e. Should the landlords compensate the tenant for fixing a window? Did the landlords breach the Tribunal’s 2023 work orders? The Tribunal’s earlier work orders
The tenancy began on 21 May 2023 and ended about 15 months later on 27 August 2024.
The tenancy did not begin well. Among other problems, the premises was not provided reasonably clean, the ceiling cavity was infested with rats, the rats chewed through a water pipe causing it to leak into a downstairs bedroom, and the tenant’s neighbour could not operate the common driveway’s electronic.
The tenant brought a claim raising these issues, among other matters, in her earlier application to the Tribunal filed on 12 June 2023 (only three weeks after the tenancy began). 1 In that case, in his decision dated 29 September 2023 Adjudicator M Manhire found largely in favour of the tenant and made work orders as follows: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 13 October 2023. a.The bath must be repaired so that it can be used by the tenant b.The gate to the driveway must be repaired and made operational for all to use. c.The leak in the water pipe above the downstairs bedroom must be repaired by a registered plumber d.All power switches must be in safe working order and if not then they must be repaired, or replaced if necessary, by a registered electrician e.The ceiling of the downstairs bedroom must be repaired, plastered, and painted to a satisfactory standard. f.The premises must be assessed as compliant for Healthy Homes Standards, including smoke alarm compliance. Discussion
The tenant and the landlords disagreed about when and whether at all the landlord complied with the work orders.
The landlord produced an invoice and a photograph confirming the repair of the bath, but the tenant insisted that the bath’s mixer was never replaced.
Mr Karuna accepts he was late to comply with the work orders for the bath, gate, and the report.
In summary, in respect to the Tribunal’s work orders: a. Bath: the landlord had not wanted the spa bath to be used. He removed the mixer prior to the tenancy beginning. After the Tribunal’s work order, the landlord had the bath’s mixer lever reinstalled on about 27 February 2024 (137 days late). However, mysteriously the mixer disappeared again. 2 b. Gate: the next-door neighbours were given a remote to operate the gate on about 2 March 2024 (141 days late). c.Leak repair: The landlord says he got the leak fixed straight away. However, he did not have an invoice. It is more probable than not that the landlord had had the leak repaired prior to 13 October 2023 because – as will be 1 Tenant v Jcknz Investments Limited Charles Karuna [2023] NZTT 4602392. 2 Barfoot’s Inspection photographs taken on 7 Aug 2024 (photo 52) show that the mixer is absent. mentioned below – he had a contractor paint the damaged ceiling. It is not likely the landlord used a registered plumber, however. d. Power switches: the landlord’s electrician found on about 6 October 2023, that the power switches did not need repair. I do not find it proven that the landlord was in breach of the work order in respect to the switches. e. Ceiling repair: the landlord submitted a text message dated 3 October 2024 that says: “a contractor is coming on Friday afternoon to paint the ceiling”. I find it more probable than not that the ceiling was repaired and painted by 13 October 2023. f.Healthy Homes Report: the landlord did not obtain the report until 26 January 2024 (105 days late). The tenant says the HHS report writer was not properly qualified. However, the report was commissioned by Barfoot who regularly instruct this report writer. The report would have complied with the work order if it had been provided on time, but it was not.
The landlord, Mr Karuna, applied for a rehearing and appealed the Tribunal’s decision. He says that he did not think he had to comply with the orders while he challenged the decision. It is only when Barfoot advised him to follow the work orders that he understood his obligation. Mr Karuna says he had the pipe repaired even prior to the Tribunal’s decision. In those circumstances it would not make sense to get the pipe repaired again.
The landlord failed to comply with the Tribunal’s work orders in respect to the bath, gate, leak repair, and Healthy Homes report. Remedies
For compensation for loss of amenity, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00. That is a rate of a about $33.33 per week for a 15-week period and also encompasses the lack of a mixer throughout the tenancy.
I turn to consider exemplary damages.
Breaching a work order without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. 3
Mr Karuna committed the unlawful act alleged. His failure to comply was intentional.
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. 4
Mr Karuna disagreed with the Tribunal’s work orders. He deliberately dragged his feet and obliquely disobeyed the Tribunal’s orders. The effect of his non-compliance was to undermine the Tribunal’s orders in the tenant’s favour. 3 RTA s 108(2A) and Schedule 1A. 4 RTA s 109(3).
It is in the public interest and the interests of the tenant to make an order for exemplary damages. It is just to order exemplary damages in this case.
Having regard to the factors just mentioned, the Tribunal orders $1,500.00 for exemplary damages.

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair?

The tenant says that a new leak occurred after the original leak that was the subject of her earlier claim. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the RTA requires landlords to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 5 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 6 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, 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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 7 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 8 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... 5 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 7 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 8 See n 5. Discussion
Barfoot’s Inspection Report dated 22 April 2024 records in respect to the Kitchenette: Leak from roof
On 25 July 2024, the tenant emailed Barfoot: Hi there Sent you our notice to vacate earlier and also the downstairs rooms on the outer wall, where we showed you the first time where we said was leaking water etc. And the second time I showed the woman who came to do the inspection, well yes that wall is soggy..my flatmate touched it and her hand went right thru it that’s how damp it is. ... But anyway let me know when you will send someone to view the wall. Thanks
Barfoot’s Inspection Report from 7 August 2024 states in respect to the Kitchenette: Hole in wall. Moisture in ceiling.
The hole occurred because the kitchenette’s wall had turned to mush due to the water ingress, and the tenant’s flatmate put her hand through it.
The moisture ingress worsened and spread to the bedroom next to the kitchenette. Barfoot’s 7 August Inspection noted in respect to Downstairs Bedroom 2: Mold on ceiling. Moisture in corner of carpet.
The tenant commissioned her own plumber to investigate the issue in August 2024. The plumber identified the source of the leak as being from the downpipe above the kitchen roof. He located the source of the leak: The downpipe extending from the roof to the kitchen had been damaged by rodents. There were clear teeth marks on the downpipe, and rodent droppings in the area.
He observed: The wall behind the kitchen was soft, and the cabinets had become swollen due to water damage...Significant clack mould was observed coming from the bedroom roof. There was substantial water intrusion affecting the carpet, and visible grey mould was present on the outer bricks of the house...Black mould was also noted on the gutter framing.
The plumber concluded: The leak has been ongoing for several months, as evidenced by the extensive damage observed. Conclusion
The landlords were aware that the kitchenette’s roof was leaking on 22 April 2024. The leak was recorded in Barfoot’s Inspection Report. It is not clear why the landlords did nothing to repair the roof prior to the end of the tenancy on 27 August 2024.
It is not clear to the Tribunal whether Barfoot adequately informed the principal landlord of the leak. 9 Which of the landlords will meet the costs of the order will need to be determined between them.
I am satisfied the leak caused the tenant significant loss of amenity. The leak was in the downstairs area frequented mostly by the tenant’s flatmate, but the tenant was also impacted by the leak. Water ingress causes mould and damp and can often have negative healthy impacts. The amount water ingress was significant and presented a health risk to the occupants.
I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity in the premises at 15 per cent of the overall expected amenity. Therefore, I order compensation of weekly rent of $1,290.00 for the period 22 April 2024 to the end of the tenancy at the rate of 15 percent.
The Tribunal orders the landlords to compensate the tenant for loss of amenity in the sum of $3,538.29.
Breach of the duty to maintain is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 10
The unlawful act was committed in the knowledge of the leak, and I am satisfied that the omission to repair was intentional.
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.
The omission to maintain was despite knowledge of the disrepair, a fact that the property manager recorded in the April Inspection Report. The Tribunal has previously found the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair, which exacerbates the seriousness of the breach. The effect of the unlawful act was to reduce the amenity of the premises and to place the tenant and the other occupants’ health at risk. It is in the tenant’s interests for the Tribunal to order exemplary damages and it is in the public interest that the Tribunal makes exemplary damages that deter other would-be offenders.
Considering these factors I find it apposite to order exemplary damages of $2,500.00 for the breach.

Did the landlords provide the tenant HHS information upon her request?

The tenant asked Barfoot to provide HHS information.
On 9 February 2024, Barfoot provided a HHS compliance statement but did not provide the premises’ HHS report.
Under s 45(1AC) of the RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request. 9 The report to the landlord does not highlight the leak for some reason. 10 RTA s 45(1A), and Schedule 1A.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. 11
Mr Gill accepts that Barfoot should have supplied the tenant with a copy of the Healthy Homes Standards report of 26 January 2024, but at the time thought it was sufficient to supply only a HHS statement.
I find Barfoot 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. 12
Barfoot was mistaken as to the law, but ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The breach deprived the tenant of information she was entitled to . It is in the public interest to order exemplary damages to encourage compliance with HHS disclosure rules.
The Tribunal orders the landlords to pay the tenant $250.00 in exemplary damages for the breach.

Did the landlords fail to comply with building standards for window safety?

The tenant submits the premises upstairs windows did not comply with the Building Code because they did not have stays to restrict the windows from opening wide enough for a person to fall out. As a result, the tenant was concerned about her children’s safety.
However, Mr Gill submits that when the house was built it complied with the Building Code. The house would not have been issued a Certificate of Code Compliance if it did not.
The Building Code does not typically apply to already built structures unless they are subsequently altered.
The tenant did not call a builder or other professional to give evidence to prove that the windows did not comply with any relevant building standard.
The tenant has not proven that the windows breached the rules.
This claim is dismissed.

Must the landlords compensate the tenant for fixing a window?

Because she was concerned about the children’s safety, the tenant took it upon herself to install window stays. Unfortunately, she accidently broke a window in the process of doing that.
Mr Gill says the landlords are prepared to pay for the cost of the stays but not the broken windows. 11 RTA s 45(1AD), and Schedule 1A. 12 RTA s 109(3).
Because the landlords did not have a legal obligation to install stays, the landlords are not liable for the tenant’s faulty work.
The claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders the cost of the stays as offered by the landlords, however. Filing fee
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her claim.
The landlords must reimburse the tenant for the filing fee. 13 Bond
The Tribunal directs the Bond Centre to release the remainder of the bond to the tenant. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication.
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.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances.
The tenant’s application for non-publication is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5078910 — Exemplary damages at 13A Hayr Road, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

Tenancy Tribunal case 5078910 — Exemplary damages at 13A Hayr Road, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

Order

Reasons

ON RESERVED DECISION

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlords provide the tenant HHS information upon her request?

Did the landlords fail to comply with building standards for window safety?

Must the landlords compensate the tenant for fixing a window?

Order

Reasons

ON RESERVED DECISION

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlords provide the tenant HHS information upon her request?

Did the landlords fail to comply with building standards for window safety?

Must the landlords compensate the tenant for fixing a window?