What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093488 about?

The tribunal order states: This Order amends and supersedes the 10 March 2025 Order. It corrects the

How much money was awarded in case 5093488?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for toil…: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for two…: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement of rubbi…: $30.66 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement- doorsto…: $43.12 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement- Keys: $21.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement- ramp/be…: $30.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement- shower…: $40.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent rebate for catdoo…: $1,395.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent rebate for mouldy…: $1,860.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent rebate for wardro…: $1,395.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093488?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11553541-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093488 about?

The tribunal order states: This Order amends and supersedes the 10 March 2025 Order. It corrects the

How much money was awarded in case 5093488?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for toil…: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for two…: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement of rubbi…: $30.66 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement- doorsto…: $43.12 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement- Keys: $21.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement- ramp/be…: $30.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement- shower…: $40.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent rebate for catdoo…: $1,395.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent rebate for mouldy…: $1,860.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent rebate for wardro…: $1,395.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093488?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11553541-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093488 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093488 — net $12,089.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement of rubbish disposal costs	$30.66	Reimbursement of rubbish disposal costs
Compensation: General damages for house cleaning, lawns and gardens	$1,000.00	General damages for house cleaning, lawns and gardens
Compensation: Rent rebate for wardrobe	$1,395.00	Rent rebate for wardrobe
Compensation: Rent rebate for catdoor	$1,395.00	Rent rebate for catdoor
Compensation: Rent rebate for mouldy and damp kitchen cupboards	$1,860.00	Rent rebate for mouldy and damp kitchen cupboards
Compensation: Reimbursement for two light fittings	$28.00	Reimbursement for two light fittings
Compensation: General damages- light fittings	$200.00	General damages- light fittings
Compensation: Reimbursement for toilet seat	$20.00	Reimbursement for toilet seat
Compensation: General damages- toilet seat	$300.00	General damages- toilet seat
Compensation: Reimbursement- keys	$21.00	Reimbursement- keys
Compensation: General damages- keys	$200.00	General damages- keys
Compensation: Reimbursement- doorstops x8	$43.12	Reimbursement- doorstops x8
Compensation: General damages- door stops	$100.00	General damages- door stops
__________________________________________________________________ 50934882 Compensation: General damages- window glass	$300.00	__________________________________________________________________ 50934882 Compensation: General damages- window glass
Compensation: Reimbursement- shower door handles	$40.00	Reimbursement- shower door handles
Compensation: Reimbursement- ramp/beading	$30.00	Reimbursement- ramp/beading
Compensation: General damages- ramp/beading	$100.00	General damages- ramp/beading
Compensation: General damages- linen cupboard shelves	$200.00	General damages- linen cupboard shelves
Exemplary damages: Breach of the landlords s45(1) obligations	$4,800.00	Breach of the landlords s45(1) obligations
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,089.78
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,089.78

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093488 — net $12,089.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement of rubbish disposal costs	$30.66	Reimbursement of rubbish disposal costs
Compensation: General damages for house cleaning, lawns and gardens	$1,000.00	General damages for house cleaning, lawns and gardens
Compensation: Rent rebate for wardrobe	$1,395.00	Rent rebate for wardrobe
Compensation: Rent rebate for catdoor	$1,395.00	Rent rebate for catdoor
Compensation: Rent rebate for mouldy and damp kitchen cupboards	$1,860.00	Rent rebate for mouldy and damp kitchen cupboards
Compensation: Reimbursement for two light fittings	$28.00	Reimbursement for two light fittings
Compensation: General damages- light fittings	$200.00	General damages- light fittings
Compensation: Reimbursement for toilet seat	$20.00	Reimbursement for toilet seat
Compensation: General damages- toilet seat	$300.00	General damages- toilet seat
Compensation: Reimbursement- keys	$21.00	Reimbursement- keys
Compensation: General damages- keys	$200.00	General damages- keys
Compensation: Reimbursement- doorstops x8	$43.12	Reimbursement- doorstops x8
Compensation: General damages- door stops	$100.00	General damages- door stops
__________________________________________________________________ 50934882 Compensation: General damages- window glass	$300.00	__________________________________________________________________ 50934882 Compensation: General damages- window glass
Compensation: Reimbursement- shower door handles	$40.00	Reimbursement- shower door handles
Compensation: Reimbursement- ramp/beading	$30.00	Reimbursement- ramp/beading
Compensation: General damages- ramp/beading	$100.00	General damages- ramp/beading
Compensation: General damages- linen cupboard shelves	$200.00	General damages- linen cupboard shelves
Exemplary damages: Breach of the landlords s45(1) obligations	$4,800.00	Breach of the landlords s45(1) obligations
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,089.78
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,089.78

Order

This Order amends and supersedes the 10 March 2025 Order. It corrects the omission of the bond refund from the 10 March 2025 Order.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
Rajpal Family Investment Company Limited and Oaks Property Management Trustee Limited Sunbera Moshin must pay [The tenants] $12,089.78 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 March 2025.
The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of s45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(a), (b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations to them.
Under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, the landlord is required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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.” 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. This includes a requirement to comply with the minimum standards of housing as set out in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”). Section 15 of the HIR provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to provide the premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness
Under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, the landlord is required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenants say the landlord did not meet this obligation as the property and house was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition when they were given possession of the property on 17 February 2023. Pre- entry clean
The tenants produced photographic evidence that on 17 February 2923, when they took possession of the premise, it was not reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants say they had to clean the floors, benches, bathroom, toilet and extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
The tenants say that because there were around thirty people in the premise when they went to view the property that they had not been able to see all the issues that were evident when they took possession of the property. Further, 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. they say that their neighbour told them that there had been a lot of trouble with the prior tenants, who had damaged the place, and that was why there were so many contractors at the premise trying to remedy repair and maintenance issues.
The tenants confirmed they did not move into the premise for a few weeks, as they were waiting for their belongings to arrive from [Country]. They lived in the male tenant’s employer provided accommodation until their belongings arrived in New Zealand. This meant the landlord had time to clean the premise properly, but failed to do so, despite the tenants raising issues with the state of cleanliness. They produced entry inspection photographs that were dated 17 February 2023 and the collages they had created and sent to the property manager, by text message, were dated 23 February 2023.
The property manager, that attended the hearing today on behalf of the landlord, confirmed she was not involved in the tenancy from the beginning and has had to rely on the entry inspection photographs and report, dated 18 February 2023, which she claims proves the house was clean and tidy. She also relied on an invoice for cleaning dated 20 September 2022 for $650.00 to prove the house was cleaned prior to the start of the tenancy. The property manager also confirmed the property was empty for a few months before these tenants moved in and that the prior tenants were evicted. The entry inspection photographs were black and white and small and difficult to compare to the tenants’ larger coloured entry inspection photographs.
The tenant’s entry photographs show the premise needed a full clean. The floors and bench tops appear dusty and dirty. The bathroom vanity had makeup smeared all over the vanity door, top and inside the cupboard. The carpet had just been ripped up and carpet nails were left everywhere. The tenants say they had to pull these carpet nails out before they moved in as they were dangerous. The photographs also show the toilet was dirty and stained inside the bowl and the seat was heavily stained, worn and dirty. The extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen ae also full of grime and needed cleaning.
The tenants were also able to prove that the 18 February 2023 entry inspection report and photographs that the property manager produced was significantly different than the one attached to an email sent to the tenant by their original property manager on 18 February 2023. The one the landlord produced was missing a number of repair and maintenance issues that were recorded in the version emailed to the tenants. This brough the accuracy of the property inspection reports produced by the landlord into question as they appeared to have been modified to remove some notes that supported the tenants’ claims. Rubbish and lawns and gardens not maintained
The tenants’ photographic evidence also proves the premise was full of rubbish outside and the lawns and gardens were not maintained when they took possession of the property. The tenants say the lawns had been mown at some stage before they moved in, but they needed another mow by 17 February 2023. The entry inspection photographs taken by the landlord and tenants prove that the lawns needed mowing, the gardens and shrubs were all overgrown, as were all the paths, and there were a few trees that had fallen that needed to be chopped up and disposed of.
The landlord produced an invoice for $1,150.00, dated 20 September 2022, for lawns and gardens and a second invoice dated 27 February 2023 that records lawn mowing and removing weeds and creepers.
The tenants confirmed that no contractor came to mow lawns or tidy the yard on 27 February 2023.
The tenants 17 February 2023 photographs prove the lawn was covered in rubbish that had been mown over previously and that needed to be picked up by hand and disposed of. They say they were still picking rubbish up a whole month after the tenancy commenced.
The tenants proved they disposed of the rubbish through about fourteen of the council rubbish collection through council pre-paid rubbish bags and produced an invoice that showed they paid $2.19 per bag, being a total of $30.66. The rubbish in the photographs contained drug paraphernalia and other household rubbish.
The tenants confirmed the original property manager had offered to pay the tenants to do this lawn and garden work and she sent someone to dispose of five trailer loads of green waste, after three weeks of the tenants asking for someone to come and clear this green waste. The tenants confirmed it took a month of after work and weekends to clear the property to a reasonable standard of tidiness. Findings
I prefer the tenants’ evidence which had all the meta data embedded into the photographs and inspection reports and contained larger, close-up photographs that prove on the balance of probabilities that the inside of the premise could not be found to be reasonably clean and tidy by an average but intelligent lay observer.
I am also satisfied the photographic evidence, provided by both parties, also proves on the balance of probabilities that the lawns and yard was not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premise and yard in a reasonable state of cleanliness and has done so intentionally.
I find the tenants should have been reimbursed for the $30.66 cost they incurred to dispose of the rubbish they removed from the lawn and that they should also receive general damages of $1,000.00 for cleaning the house and lawns/yard.
I will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Failure to maintain
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
Further, they confirmed that at the start of the tenancy, the original property manager told them that due to COVID-19 there were some repair and maintenance issues that needed to be addressed. They say she told them that she had found it hard to get contractors and that would reimburse the tenants if they did some of this repair work. Based on this promise, the tenants undertook some repair work until they found that they were never reimbursed for any of the cost of materials or their time. Consequently, they stopped doing repair and maintenance work after the first few months of the tenancy.
I also note that the inspection reports are unreliable as the versions presented to the Tribunal (from email attachments sent to the tenants by the landlord) and the versions presented by the landlord differ. The attachments sent to the tenants from the property management company appear to have more detail that accurately records the issues the tenants raised as repair and maintenance issues than the version the landlord relied on. I could see the meta data on the email attachments and knew they had not been modified by the tenants. Bedroom one- wardrobe doors
The tenants say the wardrobe doors were broken and did not open or close when the tenancy commenced. The property manager pointed these out when they first moved in, and the property manager said the tenants would be re- imbursed if they fixed these. The property manager had not reimbursed them for anything else she had promised, so the tenants decided to leave the property manager to have these fixed. They say these were never fixed during the tenancy.
The landlord says this damage is not recorded on the entry inspection report and that, as she was not present during that inspection, she could not speak to this damage.
The entry inspection report photographs clearly show the architrave is missing and the rails did not line up, so the doors would not have been able to slide easily.
The tenants say that if you tried to open these doors, they would pop off the rails and then you couldn’t get them back on again.
The landlord says that two of the photographs show the door has been moved open slightly in one picture tan the other. I do not accept that explanation as to me these photographs have been taken on differing angles and do not prove the door slid open at all.
I am satisfied that the wardrobe doors did not work for the duration of the tenancy, that this issue was reported to the landlord at inspections from the start of the tenancy and that the landlord intentionally failed to investigate or remediate this issue. In doing so, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity of the wardrobe door from 17 February 2023 to 29 November 2024 (93 weeks) at $15.00 per week, being a rent rebate of $1,395.00.
I will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Cat door in ranch slider
The tenants say when the tenancy started the cat door flap was broken and let rain and wind into the house and was a security risk. Further, they say the original property manager promised that this cat door would be taken out and new glass put into it before the tenancy started. The tenants say the property manager kept promising this would be done at each of the initial inspections, but it was never repaired.
The landlord says the cat door was there from the beginning, was part of the property features, the tenants had seen the cat door when they viewed the property, and they took the property with this feature. In addition, the landlord says it has found no communication about this issue in the property management company’s system.
The tenant’s produced pictures of the cat door that prove the flap was missing and that it left a gaping hole that cold air, rain, and wind came through. In addition, the tenants asked the landlord why it would say this was a feature of a tenancy that did not allow pets. The tenants confirmed they texted and called the prior property manager about this issue a lot at the start of the tenancy but have lost the prior telephone they had so no longer have access to these messages.
The tenant produced their copy of the 18 February 2023 entry report they were sent by the property manager at the start of the tenancy. It records the cat door is damaged and will be replaced. The version of this report the property manager presented to the Tribunal appeared to have been doctored, as there were other things on the report the tenant had been emailed that were missing from the property manager supplied 18 February inspection report.
I am satisfied that the cat door was broken for the duration of the tenancy, that this issue was reported to the landlord at inspections from the start of the tenancy and that the landlord intentionally failed remediate this issue. In doing so, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period 17 February 2023 to 29 November 2024 (93 weeks) at $15.00 per week, being a rent rebate of $1,395.00 for the loss of amenity they suffered from living with a broke cat door that let on cold damp air, rain and wind and posed a security risk.
I will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Kitchen sink
The tenants say the stainless-steel bench and sink were lifting and there was mould under the sink. Black mould had spread from the cupboard underneath to the cupboard next to it that started from a gap under the sink. The photographic evidence proves this area had been damp for some time and the mould was embedded in the particle board. The tenants say they investigated this issue as they were going to put sealant around the leak but found sealant would not assist.
The tenants say this issue was raised with the property manager when just after they took possession of the property. Again, they say they discussed this during the second inspection and sent her text messages about it on 24 February 2023.
The tenants say the property manager came to inspect this damage, after receiving the photographs sent to her by text on 24 February 2023, and she did nothing about addressing the issue. Thereafter, the tenants say that each property manager that came for inspections were shown the mouldy cupboards but did nothing about this issue. The tenants say they also submitted requests for repairs after each inspection, initially they did so manually and then once the property management system changed, they submitted these requests digitally.
The landlord says there is a record of the sink leaking and that someone needs to come and check the issue, but there is no record of anyone coming to investigate or address this issue.
I am satisfied that the cupboards were damp and full of black mould for the duration of the tenancy, that this issue was reported to the landlord from the start of the tenancy and that the landlord intentionally failed remediate this issue. In doing so, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period 17 February 2023 to 29 November 2024 (93 weeks) at $20.00 per week, being a rent rebate of $1,860.00 for the loss of amenity they suffered from living with a black mould in their kitchen cupboards.
I find the breach was intentional and will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Second bedroom and hallway lights not functioning
The tenants say they discovered a light in the second bedroom and in the hallway did not work just after they moved in, but thought it was just bulbs that needed replacing. After replacing the light bulbs, they found it was the fittings. Despite raising these issues with the landlord, the fittings were never repaired.
The tenants say that on the first inspection, on 18 February 2023, the property manager told the tenants she would get an electrician to repair these lights, but nothing was ever done about them, and the lights did not work at all during the tenancy.
The landlord says she has an invoice dated 10 September 2022 that shows an electrician came to check power points and lights and that the invoice says that some lights were not working due to missing light bulbs but does not specify which lights. Further, it says the invoice does not record any issues with light fittings. In addition, the landlord directed me to a photograph of the hallway on 18 February 2023 that shows a light bulb working in the hallway that the tenants say was never in the fitting let alone working.
The property inspection report in May 2023 records that a new light fitting had been installed in the hallway by the tenants. The tenants were never reimbursed for the light fitting. The tenant says he replaced the two fittings, and they were $14.00 each.
I am satisfied that the two light fittings were an issue from the start of the tenancy and that the landlord intentionally failed to remediate this issue. I am also satisfied that the initial property report provided by the landlord has some accuracy issues and that leads me to prefer the tenants evidence that the bulb was missing in the hallway light fitting and that it did not work. The fact it is recorded as having been replaced in the May 2023 inspection report also lends a level of increased credibility to the tenants’ evidence.
I am satisfied the light fittings needed replacement and that the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally by not investigating the issues with the light fittings more fully or remediating it and the tenants should receive compensation of $28.00 for the fittings and general damages of $200.00 for the loss of amenity and inconvenience suffered.
I find the breach was intentional and will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Toilet seat
The tenants produced photographs dated 17 February 2023 that prove the toilet seat was damaged, stained and unhygienic. The top layer of plastic had peeled off the seat and allowed staining. The photographs also show a dirty and stained toilet bowl.
The tenants say the issues with the toilet were identified by them and the letting person that took them to view the premise. The tenants say the property manager that undertook the entry inspection recorded that the entire toilet needed to be replaced, as it was also not fitted properly and kept blocking.
The tenants say they raised the issues with the toilet several times after the first inspection, and nothing was done. In the end, the toilet seat was so unhygienic that they replaced it themselves on 12 March 2023 for $20.00. They confirmed they were never reimbursed for this cost.
The landlord says it does not have any records of text messages between the prior property managers and the tenants as these are not retained in the property manager’s files. However, it says the entry photographs show the toilets in good condition, but the tenants are entitled to do minor modifications if they like.
The entry inspection photographs provided were small and in black and white and the issues with the toilet seat and bowl were hard to see. However, the tenants showed me the 18 February 2023 inspection report records that the toilet is old and needs replacing. In addition, they had photographs of the toilet dated 17 February 2023 that show the toilet is dirty inside the bowl and the seat is badly worn and stained.
I am satisfied the toilet bowl and seat needed replacement and that the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally by not investigating the issues with the toilet more fully or remediating it and the tenants should receive compensation of $20.00 for the fittings and general damages of $300.00 for the loss of amenity and inconvenience suffered.
I find the breach was intentional and will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Keys
The tenants say for a good majority of the tenancy, they had the only set of keys and when the landlord wanted to do an inspection the tenants were given 30 minutes notice and had to leave work to go and let the landlord in. The tenants say eventually the got a spare set of keys cut and gave the originals back to the landlord. The tenants say that the keys cost them around $21.00 but were never reimbursed for them and the landlord had the two sets of keys at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord says it knows nothing about the key issue as the property manager at the hearing was not the property manager when keys were an issue and there is no record of this cost or issue in the property management system.
I am satisfied the keys were a major source of stress and inconvenience to the tenants and the tenants should receive compensation of $21.00 for the set of keys they got cut and general damages of $200.00 for the loss of amenity and inconvenience suffered. Door stops
The tenants provided photographs that proved why they had to replace all the door stops throughout the house as the ones that were there were old and not functioning, so risked causing damage to the walls. To prevent damage the tenants replaced them all, and confirmed they replaced eight altogether at a cost of $5.39 per door stop. They confirmed they were told they would be reimbursed for this cost be the original property manager but never received reimbursement for the receipted cost.
The tenants say the original property manager told the tenants to do this as the first day of the tenancy the door blew open and slightly damaged the wall.
The landlord says the photographs show the doorstops were present behind all doors in the entry inspection and the tenants were able to replace them if they wanted to, but it was not necessary to do so as the existing ones were doing their job and there was no damage to the walls.
The tenants’ photographs of worn spring-based doorstops that were rusty and bent when pushed on, proved these existing door stopes were old and ineffective.
I am satisfied the doorstops were of inconvenience to the tenants and the tenants should receive compensation of $43.12 for the doorstops they replaced and general damages of $100.00 for the inconvenience suffered and their labour.
I find the breach was intentional and will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Glass in bedroom window
The tenants provided photographs that prove the glass in the bedroom window had a crack in it at the start of the tenancy, and it was never fixed, so it got worse during the tenancy.
The landlord says the window was replaced during the tenancy but broke again due to issues with the foundation with the house. The property manager could not find any evidence of this window having been fixed in its files to support its assertion.
Reluctantly, the landlord confirmed that the glass was broken at the end of the tenancy, and it could see evidence of the crack in the property inspection photographs from the beginning of the tenancy.
I am satisfied the landlord was aware of the cracked and lose window glass for the duration of the tenancy and failed to investigate and remediate the issue. I find that the tenants should be awarded general damages of $300.00 for the loss of amenity and inconvenience suffered by them for the 93 weeks of the tenancy.
I find the breach was intentional and will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Shower door handles
The tenants say they installed shower door handles as there were none when they moved in. They produced an invoice for $40.00 from 16 March 2023. The entry inspection report records that these were missing at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord did not dispute this claim.
I award the tenants compensation for the handles of $40.00. Water damage caused holes in the floor inside near each of the doors
The tenants say when the tenancy commenced the particle board that had been underneath the carpet showed significant water damage and there were considerable numbers of carpet nails that had been left in the floorboard when the carpet had been lifted.
The tenants produced photographs that proved they removed all the carpet nails and installed aluminium ramps/beading to cover holes between the steps and the front door and entrance to the lounge.
The original property manager had noted these gaps/holes in the entry inspection and recorded the installation in the May 2023 property management report and took photographs of the work to show the owner. The tenant says the cost to them was about $30.00 for the materials and the male tenants time to cut it to size and screwed it in.
The landlord says she can see the photographs in the 24 May 2023 inspection report but has no information about agreeing to reimburse the tenants or the tenants having completed this work in the property management system.
Overall, the landlord did not dispute this claim.
I award the tenants compensation for the ramps/beadings of $30.00 and $100.00 for labour costs.
I find the breach was intentional and will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Shelves in linen cupboard
The tenants produced photographs of the linen cupboard that shows there were damaged shelves that needed replacing. The damaged shelves were evident in the entry inspection photographs.
The landlord says that she found hot water cylinder repair invoices, and that the plumber must have taken the shelves out to repair the hot water cylinder and not replaced them.
Overall, the landlord did not dispute this claim and accepts it should have had the shelves repaired or replaced but did not.
I award the tenants general damages of $200.00 for the costs associated with replacing these shelves.
I find the breach was intentional and will address the issue of exemplary damages as a global sum at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider 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 tenancy agreement commenced on 17 February 2023. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 120th day after the tenancy commenced, being 17 June 2023.
The tenancy agreement records that the premise was assessed on the moisture and drainage standard on 30 April 2021, and it passed the assessment.
The landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment report, dated 1 November 2024. This report also proves the premise complied all five of the healthy homes’ standards as at that date.
The tenants did not believe the rental premise met the healthy homes standards because they spoke to the inspector when he came, and the tenants showed him the exposed cat door and the mould under the sink in the kitchen. They say the inspector informed them that if these had been present when the initial assessment and been undertaken, the property would have failed two of the healthy homes standards. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 tenants were not able to provide the Tribunal with sufficient evidence that the landlord’s assessor missed this breach when it conducted its 2021 healthy homes assessment. I find it more likely than not, that the issues complained of had developed after the 2021 assessment and had been fixed by the time the November 2024 assessment was conducted.
The tenants claim for breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard is dismissed because I am satisfied this is another repair and maintenance issue and not a breach of the healthy homes’ standards. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed two intentional breaches of s45(1)(a) of the RTA, ten of s45(1)(b) of the RTA and one of the HIR/s45(1)(c). These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants and their family living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions and they experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief or reimburse the tenants for the costs they incurred carrying out repair and maintenance issues that were the job of the landlord.
I find the landlord has committed these thirteen unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity they suffered but the tenants have had to carry repair and maintenance costs they should have been reimbursed for at the time the landlord was notified of the costs incurred. 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.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $4,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being two thirds of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their name and identifying details.
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 tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093488 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093488 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions