Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5137990 — Property damage at 15 Manuka Street, Otaki Beach, Otaki 5512
Decided 27 Feb 2025 · Published 27 Feb 2025 · Application 5137990
- Property damage
Order
- [The party] and [The party] must pay [The party] and [The party] $1,677.00 immediately.
- The amount to pay is calculated as follows:
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing.
- [The party] and [The party] claim that the landlords have 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. Breaching any of these obligations is 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 45(1A), 109(3) and Schedule 1A, Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Remedial issues in 2023
- The tenancy began on 16 April 2023. The tenants claim that the premises was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlords and tenants provided contrasting evidence about the condition of the premises. The tenants provided a text from the start of the tenancy showing that the toilet was black on the inside. However they did not provide texts or other evidence to the Tribunal showing that they required the landlords to remedy any breach of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy and that the landlords then refused to remedy a breach. If there is a breach a party has be informed that they are required to remedy. There is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to make a finding regarding that issue.
- Shortly after the tenancy began the tenants notified the landlords about problems with the premises that needed addressing. The hot water began boiling in the H/W cylinder due to a thermostat failure leading to the discovery of mould in the hot water cupboard. The heat pump malfunctioned.
- The landlords have provided evidence showing what steps were taken to remediate the problems the tenants advised them about. Each issue was addressed by the landlords. The tenants’ claim is that there was an inconvenience resulting from the problems which they should receive compensation and exemplary damages for.
- The Tribunal and Court rulings have discussed inconvenience to tenants during tenancies. Tenants cannot expect that there will be no issues with premises during tenancies. Whether premises are occupied by owners or tenants, problems arise with premises. Compensation is appropriate when problems have an impact on tenants over an unreasonable period of time.
- I have considered the sequence of events and am satisfied that the landlords addressed the problems that occurred in 2023 in a reasonable way. There was no unreasonable delay in fixing the H/W thermostat. Regarding the mould, initially the tenants texted the landlords stating that they could deal with the mould if the landlords purchased Zinsser Mould Stop paint. The landlords attempted to remediate but then contacted Techclean Ltd on 31 May to carry out the work. The work could not be carried out until 27 June but was then delayed to 11 July because on 27 June, one of the tenants had Covid. On 11 July the tradesmen arrived to carry out the work but were sent away by one of the tenants who had not been told by the other tenant about the booking. I am satisfied that these delays were not caused by the landlords. Regarding the heat pump, the replacement was made with a superior unit being installed.
- I am satisfied that the tenants have not provided sufficient reason for compensation to be ordered regarding maintenance issues in 2023. Their claim carries less weight because the Tribunal application regarding 2023 maintenance requirements has not been lodged until January 2025. Claims for exemplary damages must also be dismissed because section 109(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that a tenant or landlord may not apply for exemplary damages 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. Healthy Homes Standards
- The tenants also raised that the landlords had not communicated adequately with them regarding Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliance. On 15 December 2024 the tenants wrote to the landlords accusing them of being in breach of their responsibilities by not providing a “healthy homes certificate”. It is unclear what the tenants required. Their Residential Tenancy Agreement, which they signed on 15 April 2023, included the landlords’ statement on HHS compliance. That is all that is required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provisions.
- A landlord is not required to commission a HHS Report for the tenants. If tenants believed premises did not comply with HHS they are free to commission a HHS report.
- On 23 December 2024 the landlords did receive a HHS report on the premises. It appears they thought they were required to do this because of the tenants’ texts to them. The Report showed HHS compliance except in a draught stopping area. The landlords addressed this non-compliance by employing a tradesman. At the hearing the tenants raised that there was still a gap in a window frame after the remedial work was carried out. This was the first the landlords had heard that. A landlord cannot usually expect to know of remedial work that is unsatisfactory unless informed by the tenants.
- No order is appropriate regarding the tenants’ application that the landlords were in breach of HHS requirements. The toilet and toilet area 14 day notice.
- On 14 October 2024 the tenants texted the landlords regarding the condition of the architrave in the toilet. They stated that slugs were coming through the corner and the deterioration had “gotten progressively worse recently”. The landlords suggested garden slug bait on a lid. The tenants responded asking that at least the gap in the corner be fixed.
- The landlords provided evidence from a repair invoice relating to the replacement of skirting in the bathroom in October 2023. The repairer, Scotts Handyman Servicers Ltd, stated on the invoice that the toilet skirting was not replaced because the walls need replacing and it would be best to do the skirting at that time.
- After the landlords failed to change the skirting, following the tenants’ request in October 2024, the tenants sent a 14 day notice to the landlords on 15 January 2025. The landlords had not carried out any repairs to the toilet area by the date of the hearing. The landlords stated that they could not afford to replace the architrave because the wall needed to be replaced when the architrave was replaced.
- If a repair is necessary the landlord cannot delay the repair on the grounds that it cannot be afforded.
- I am satisfied that the tenants had grounds for a 14 day notice regarding the toilet area. The wall, floor, architrave and toilet were functional but needed to be changed. The condition of the area was such that it could not be cleaned properly. The rot allowing insects to come in shows the state of deterioration. A landlord is not required to modernize the facilities but is required to replace areas that have deteriorated. That is maintenance.
- I am satisfied that the landlord failed to exercise their responsibilities regarding the maintenance of the toilet area. I have allowed compensation of $100.00 per month for four months from mid October when the tenants notified the landlord of slugs coming through the wall.
- The tenants have also requested exemplary damages for the unlawful act of failing to maintain this area of the premises. As stated above, 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 45(1A), 109(3) and Schedule 1A, Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I am satisfied that the unlawful act of failing to maintain the toilet area was committed intentionally. The landlords knew that work was required on the walls and architrave to replace rotten material and stop slugs entering the toilet area. The failure by the landlords did not prevent the toilet area being used. However it became more and more unpleasant and unsatisfactory for the tenants. It is in the public interest for rental properties to be maintained to a reasonable standard. The toilet area did not meet that standard.
- I was not made aware of the landlord having committed a similar unlawful act previously. This unlawful act is on the lower end of the scale. Having considered the evidence, I have ordered exemplary damages of $1,200.00. The maximum of $7,200.00 is reserved for the most serious cases. Filing Fee
- Because the tenant has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord.