What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5199871 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5199871?

Compensation: $6,860.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12305626-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5199871 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5199871?

Compensation: $6,860.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12305626-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

42B Marine Parade, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5199871 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5199871 — net $7,887.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – personal belongings	$6,860.00	Compensation – personal belongings
Compensation – stress, inconvenience	$1,000.00	Compensation – stress, inconvenience
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,887.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,887.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant is seeking $20,000.00 compensation relating to asbestos contamination at the premises, stress and inconvenience, and exemplary damages under section 45(1A), section 45(1B) and 45(1AD)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

As I explained to the tenant, section 45(1B) refers to section 138C and regulations in respect of contaminants and contaminated premises. As these regulations have not yet come into effect, they can have no relevance to this claim.

Section 45(1AD)(a) relates to landlord failure to provide healthy homes information which was not part of the original application and cannot now be considered. For the record, the landlord is not in breach as this tenancy started on 5 April 2021 and the tenancy agreement included all required information at that time.

At the end of the hearing the landlord indicated they are not disputing liability for the claim for compensation, but they dispute the amount claimed, and exemplary damages.

The issues to be decided are therefore as follows: (a) What is the appropriate amount of compensation? (b) Should an award of exemplary damages be made? (c) Should there be an award for stress and inconvenience?

What is the appropriate amount of compensation?

Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

There is no dispute that asbestos was found in 2 bedrooms at the premises after a serious leak and subsequent repairs.

A loss adjuster appointed by the landlord’s insurance company estimated the tenants’ loss [of belongings] at $4,771.00. However, I prefer the tenant’s updated estimate of $6,860.00 as claimed. This is calculated as the loss adjuster’s report of $4,771.00 plus an additional $2,089.00. The tenant has provided receipts for an additional $2,379.75 so the amount claimed has been proven. I find that the items purchased were reasonably necessary (for the most part) and the landlord assured the tenant to buy what they needed, and they would be reimbursed.

Should an award of exemplary damages be made?

I decline to make an award of exemplary damages as the landlord did not intentionally cause the asbestos contamination.

I agree that the tenants should have been told to leave the premises on 24 February after the landlord received an email from John Ross (Project Manager) recommending that no-one enter until further notice. The tenants were not told to leave until after one of the bedrooms tested positive for asbestos on 28 February.

However, I accept the evidence of the landlord that she believed the issue was restricted to one bedroom, and she was erroneously advised by a builder that the rest of the premises was safe.

This part of the claim is dismissed.

Should there be an award for stress and inconvenience?

Damages or compensation may include general damages for pain and suffering or emotional distress. The Tribunal may consider the nature and duration of the breach, and its effect on the parties, as important elements in determining the nature and quantum of damages. The Tribunal may not, however, award compensation for matters that are covered under the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

I find the tenant is entitled to an award of general compensation for stress and inconvenience. This is effectively a statutory entitlement to compensation that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award. This can also be regarded as an award for general damages for stress and inconvenience pursuant to the common law.

The tenants were understandably distressed by this incident. This could have been mitigated to some extent if the original repairs had correctly identified the possibility of asbestos exposure, and the tenants should have been advised to leave on 24 February instead of 28 February.

After weighing the substantive merits and justice and the amount of compensation already awarded, I award $1,000.00 as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation for stress and inconvenience. Filing fee and name suppression

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression as requested. The landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5199871 — net $7,887.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – personal belongings	$6,860.00	Compensation – personal belongings
Compensation – stress, inconvenience	$1,000.00	Compensation – stress, inconvenience
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,887.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,887.00

Order

Suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
All Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $7,887.00 immediately as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant is seeking $20,000.00 compensation relating to asbestos contamination at the premises, stress and inconvenience, and exemplary damages under section 45(1A), section 45(1B) and 45(1AD)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
As I explained to the tenant, section 45(1B) refers to section 138C and regulations in respect of contaminants and contaminated premises. As these regulations have not yet come into effect, they can have no relevance to this claim.
Section 45(1AD)(a) relates to landlord failure to provide healthy homes information which was not part of the original application and cannot now be considered. For the record, the landlord is not in breach as this tenancy started on 5 April 2021 and the tenancy agreement included all required information at that time.
At the end of the hearing the landlord indicated they are not disputing liability for the claim for compensation, but they dispute the amount claimed, and exemplary damages.
The issues to be decided are therefore as follows: (a) What is the appropriate amount of compensation? (b) Should an award of exemplary damages be made? (c) Should there be an award for stress and inconvenience?

What is the appropriate amount of compensation?

Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that asbestos was found in 2 bedrooms at the premises after a serious leak and subsequent repairs.
A loss adjuster appointed by the landlord’s insurance company estimated the tenants’ loss [of belongings] at $4,771.00. However, I prefer the tenant’s updated estimate of $6,860.00 as claimed. This is calculated as the loss adjuster’s report of $4,771.00 plus an additional $2,089.00. The tenant has provided receipts for an additional $2,379.75 so the amount claimed has been proven. I find that the items purchased were reasonably necessary (for the most part) and the landlord assured the tenant to buy what they needed, and they would be reimbursed.

Should an award of exemplary damages be made?

I decline to make an award of exemplary damages as the landlord did not intentionally cause the asbestos contamination.
I agree that the tenants should have been told to leave the premises on 24 February after the landlord received an email from John Ross (Project Manager) recommending that no-one enter until further notice. The tenants were not told to leave until after one of the bedrooms tested positive for asbestos on 28 February.
However, I accept the evidence of the landlord that she believed the issue was restricted to one bedroom, and she was erroneously advised by a builder that the rest of the premises was safe.
This part of the claim is dismissed.

Should there be an award for stress and inconvenience?

Damages or compensation may include general damages for pain and suffering or emotional distress. The Tribunal may consider the nature and duration of the breach, and its effect on the parties, as important elements in determining the nature and quantum of damages. The Tribunal may not, however, award compensation for matters that are covered under the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
I find the tenant is entitled to an award of general compensation for stress and inconvenience. This is effectively a statutory entitlement to compensation that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award. This can also be regarded as an award for general damages for stress and inconvenience pursuant to the common law.
The tenants were understandably distressed by this incident. This could have been mitigated to some extent if the original repairs had correctly identified the possibility of asbestos exposure, and the tenants should have been advised to leave on 24 February instead of 28 February.
After weighing the substantive merits and justice and the amount of compensation already awarded, I award $1,000.00 as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation for stress and inconvenience. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression as requested. The landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199871 — Tenancy dispute at 42B Marine Parade, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199871 — Tenancy dispute at 42B Marine Parade, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the appropriate amount of compensation?

Should an award of exemplary damages be made?

Should there be an award for stress and inconvenience?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the appropriate amount of compensation?

Should an award of exemplary damages be made?

Should there be an award for stress and inconvenience?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions