What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160934 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5160934?

Property Damage: $1,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160934?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11650223-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160934 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5160934?

Property Damage: $1,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160934?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11650223-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 47 Don Croot Street, Morningside, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5160934 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160934 — net $2,277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: fail to provide prescribed information	$500.00	fail to provide prescribed information
Compensation: general damages	$1,750.00	general damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,277.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,277.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
A Cube Rentals Limited As Agent For Maple Crescent Trusty Limited [The applicant/s]$2,277.00 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The application is brought against A Cube Rentals Limited, the property manager, as agent. The owner Maple Crescent Trustee Limited is named as the landlord in the agreement and is appropriately a party to the application. The property manager confirms that the owner is aware of the proceedings and has authorised the property manager to appear as the landlord representative. Background
The landlord took over management of the premises with a tenancy in place. That tenancy ended and the parties entered into this agreement, which was for an initial fixed term from 15 October 2023 to 14 October 2024. It became a periodic tenancy thereafter.
The tenants say that when they entered into a new tenancy they realised that many of their rights had not been met by the landlord and this application was brought.
They seek: a. exemplary damages for failure to provide Healthy Homes compliance and other required information in the tenancy agreement; b. compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations. Content of the Agreement
Section 13A RTA requires that a landlord provide specified information in a tenancy agreement. That information includes: a. an insulation statement (s.13A(1A)); b. a Healthy Homes compliance statement (s.13A(1CA)); c. an insurance statement (s.13A(2)).
Failure to provide that information is in each case an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded (s.13A(1F)(a)).
The tenants have provided in evidence what they say is the complete agreement provided to them by the landlord. It contains none of the information described in in paragraph 13. The landlord says its processes will have ensured that information was in fact provided, but the landlord is unable to provide a copy of the agreement with that information contained in it or proof of the information having been provided another way.
I find it proved on balance that the landlord failed to meet this obligation and the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
No reasonable explanation is given for the landlord’s failure to meet that obligation which I find to be intentional, albeit perhaps through error.
I take into account that the landlord is a professional property manager and should have systems in place to prevent this kind of oversight. There is a public interest in that being the case.
I also take into account that during the tenancy, issues raised by the tenants showed that they were uncertain about the premises’ HH compliance and were impacted by the absence of that information they were entitled to have.
In mitigation I take into account that the landlord has provided in evidence a copy of a Healthy Homes report stating that the premises did in fact comply with Healthy Homes standards when the tenancy began. It is very difficult to understand why the first time the tenants saw that report was at this hearing.
I find that an award of exemplary damages of 2/3 of the maximum would be just, taking into account that there were multiple breaches arising from the landlord’s failure to properly document the agreement. Repair/ maintenance obligations
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants’ evidence is that soon after moving in they noticed severe problems with dampness and mould in the premises, which had a major impact on their health and more concerningly the health of their young daughter. They say that when they raised their concerns, the landlord’s primary response was that they should move. Compensation/ damages of $10,000.00 are claimed.
The tenants’ claim is supported by photographic and video evidence showing: a. significant mould growth on the ceilings and around window joinery and on blockwork walls; b. water dripping from ceilings; c. obvious dampness on walls with wallpaper coming away, revealing what appears to be historic mould growth that has been painted over.
The tenants raised their concerns with the landlord from the beginning of winter 2024 noting: “We need help regarding the insulation of the house. Right now we are not in the condition to change our house but the condition of this house is not good. We’ve had a word with other people, they suggested installing a dehumidifier..........Please have a word with the owner to provide a dehumidifier as our kid is not well from the last two months”. They also informed the landlord (with photos and video), “Are you sure that this property is fully insulated?? Yup we are using the HRV system, then also there are water drops in the rooms and washroom.”
The landlord provided a dehumidifier. The tenants say the dehumidifier they were given was of industrial size which they could not really use – the landlord says a large one was provided to best deal with the dampness.
The landlord also had people (one of them the property manager’s brother) clean mould from the premises – although the tenants say that amounted to poorly painting over the mould, leaving the premises so smelly they had to move out for several days.
The landlord also had the HRV system serviced and had the gutters cleaned and adjusted for better drainage.
After the tenants moved out, the owner had the exterior block wall sealed and painted with mould paint;
My assessment of the evidence is that: a. when the tenancy began the was a pre-existing issue with established mould growth that had been painted over and was not apparent to either the tenants, or to the landlord which had not long before taken over management of the premises; b. that established mould grown and the premises’ susceptibility to damp, before the gutters were cleaned and adjusted and exterior walls sealed and mould painted, had a significant and adverse effect on the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises; c. the tenants met their obligation under s.40(1)(d) to notify the landlord about the issues; d. while the tenants complain about the landlord’s response, the landlord did, for the most part take reasonable steps to respond to the tenants’ concerns.
I do not find it proved that the landlord intentionally breached its obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. No award of exemplary damages should be made.
Nevertheless, those pre-existing issues, contributed to during the tenancy by the premises susceptibility to damp, meant that the landlord did, though not intentionally, breached the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. As a consequence, the tenants were paying full market rent for premises that were not adequate in those respects, causing loss of amenity, stress and health concerns for the tenants.
The appropriate award is one of general damages, the purpose of which is to compensate for pain and suffering or emotional distress 1 .
In Tenant v Ezy Rentals NZ Ltd 2 , after reviewing the authorities, the Tribunal noted some general compensation bands that the Tribunal might consider in assessing an appropriate award, as being: a. at the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00; b. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00; c. at the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.
Other factors such as the duration of the tenancy and mitigation steps taken by the other party can also be relevant.
Here, I find it proved that breach of the landlord’s obligations caused hardship and stress for the tenants as well as justifiable worries about health implications.
While there is an established link between certain health conditions and exposure to damp and mould, which is consistent with the tenants’ description of symptoms they experienced, the tenants have not provided evidence proving the nature or degree of the health effects experienced by them and their daughter during the tenancy, or a causal link between those effects and exposure to damp/mould in their home.
Weighing those considerations, I find that grounds are proved for an award at the high end of the lower “band” as outlined.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim, I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160934 — net $2,277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: fail to provide prescribed information	$500.00	fail to provide prescribed information
Compensation: general damages	$1,750.00	general damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,277.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,277.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
A Cube Rentals Limited As Agent For Maple Crescent Trusty Limited [The applicant/s]$2,277.00 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The application is brought against A Cube Rentals Limited, the property manager, as agent. The owner Maple Crescent Trustee Limited is named as the landlord in the agreement and is appropriately a party to the application. The property manager confirms that the owner is aware of the proceedings and has authorised the property manager to appear as the landlord representative. Background
The landlord took over management of the premises with a tenancy in place. That tenancy ended and the parties entered into this agreement, which was for an initial fixed term from 15 October 2023 to 14 October 2024. It became a periodic tenancy thereafter.
The tenants say that when they entered into a new tenancy they realised that many of their rights had not been met by the landlord and this application was brought.
They seek: a. exemplary damages for failure to provide Healthy Homes compliance and other required information in the tenancy agreement; b. compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations. Content of the Agreement
Section 13A RTA requires that a landlord provide specified information in a tenancy agreement. That information includes: a. an insulation statement (s.13A(1A)); b. a Healthy Homes compliance statement (s.13A(1CA)); c. an insurance statement (s.13A(2)).
Failure to provide that information is in each case an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded (s.13A(1F)(a)).
The tenants have provided in evidence what they say is the complete agreement provided to them by the landlord. It contains none of the information described in in paragraph 13. The landlord says its processes will have ensured that information was in fact provided, but the landlord is unable to provide a copy of the agreement with that information contained in it or proof of the information having been provided another way.
I find it proved on balance that the landlord failed to meet this obligation and the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
No reasonable explanation is given for the landlord’s failure to meet that obligation which I find to be intentional, albeit perhaps through error.
I take into account that the landlord is a professional property manager and should have systems in place to prevent this kind of oversight. There is a public interest in that being the case.
I also take into account that during the tenancy, issues raised by the tenants showed that they were uncertain about the premises’ HH compliance and were impacted by the absence of that information they were entitled to have.
In mitigation I take into account that the landlord has provided in evidence a copy of a Healthy Homes report stating that the premises did in fact comply with Healthy Homes standards when the tenancy began. It is very difficult to understand why the first time the tenants saw that report was at this hearing.
I find that an award of exemplary damages of 2/3 of the maximum would be just, taking into account that there were multiple breaches arising from the landlord’s failure to properly document the agreement. Repair/ maintenance obligations
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants’ evidence is that soon after moving in they noticed severe problems with dampness and mould in the premises, which had a major impact on their health and more concerningly the health of their young daughter. They say that when they raised their concerns, the landlord’s primary response was that they should move. Compensation/ damages of $10,000.00 are claimed.
The tenants’ claim is supported by photographic and video evidence showing: a. significant mould growth on the ceilings and around window joinery and on blockwork walls; b. water dripping from ceilings; c. obvious dampness on walls with wallpaper coming away, revealing what appears to be historic mould growth that has been painted over.
The tenants raised their concerns with the landlord from the beginning of winter 2024 noting: “We need help regarding the insulation of the house. Right now we are not in the condition to change our house but the condition of this house is not good. We’ve had a word with other people, they suggested installing a dehumidifier..........Please have a word with the owner to provide a dehumidifier as our kid is not well from the last two months”. They also informed the landlord (with photos and video), “Are you sure that this property is fully insulated?? Yup we are using the HRV system, then also there are water drops in the rooms and washroom.”
The landlord provided a dehumidifier. The tenants say the dehumidifier they were given was of industrial size which they could not really use – the landlord says a large one was provided to best deal with the dampness.
The landlord also had people (one of them the property manager’s brother) clean mould from the premises – although the tenants say that amounted to poorly painting over the mould, leaving the premises so smelly they had to move out for several days.
The landlord also had the HRV system serviced and had the gutters cleaned and adjusted for better drainage.
After the tenants moved out, the owner had the exterior block wall sealed and painted with mould paint;
My assessment of the evidence is that: a. when the tenancy began the was a pre-existing issue with established mould growth that had been painted over and was not apparent to either the tenants, or to the landlord which had not long before taken over management of the premises; b. that established mould grown and the premises’ susceptibility to damp, before the gutters were cleaned and adjusted and exterior walls sealed and mould painted, had a significant and adverse effect on the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises; c. the tenants met their obligation under s.40(1)(d) to notify the landlord about the issues; d. while the tenants complain about the landlord’s response, the landlord did, for the most part take reasonable steps to respond to the tenants’ concerns.
I do not find it proved that the landlord intentionally breached its obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. No award of exemplary damages should be made.
Nevertheless, those pre-existing issues, contributed to during the tenancy by the premises susceptibility to damp, meant that the landlord did, though not intentionally, breached the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. As a consequence, the tenants were paying full market rent for premises that were not adequate in those respects, causing loss of amenity, stress and health concerns for the tenants.
The appropriate award is one of general damages, the purpose of which is to compensate for pain and suffering or emotional distress 1 .
In Tenant v Ezy Rentals NZ Ltd 2 , after reviewing the authorities, the Tribunal noted some general compensation bands that the Tribunal might consider in assessing an appropriate award, as being: a. at the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00; b. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00; c. at the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.
Other factors such as the duration of the tenancy and mitigation steps taken by the other party can also be relevant.
Here, I find it proved that breach of the landlord’s obligations caused hardship and stress for the tenants as well as justifiable worries about health implications.
While there is an established link between certain health conditions and exposure to damp and mould, which is consistent with the tenants’ description of symptoms they experienced, the tenants have not provided evidence proving the nature or degree of the health effects experienced by them and their daughter during the tenancy, or a causal link between those effects and exposure to damp/mould in their home.
Weighing those considerations, I find that grounds are proved for an award at the high end of the lower “band” as outlined.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160934 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 47 Don Croot Street, Morningside, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160934 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 47 Don Croot Street, Morningside, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions