What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310766 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5310766?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,145.14 awarded to landlord; Weeks: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310766?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310766?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13045112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310766 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5310766?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,145.14 awarded to landlord; Weeks: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310766?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310766?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13045112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Colombo Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310766 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310766 — net $4,282.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 September 2024	$4,145.14		Rent arrears to 3 September 2024
weeks		$6,000.00	weeks
Exemplary damages: Maintenance breach		$2,400.00	Maintenance breach
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,145.14	$8,428.00
Net award		$4,282.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,282.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Nz Property Agents Limited and Sarah Drought must pay [The tenant/s] $4,282.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord company was bought out by another company after the end of the tenancy. NZ Property Agents Limited is still a registered company. The current director, Mr Heeran, attended the hearing. Mr Heeran could not confirm if the Trust named on the tenancy agreement was still correct and so the owner at the time has been named. I note the owner is named on the latest variation of tenancy. The tenants were all served with the applications and [Tenant 1] represented the tenants.
This tenancy started in November 2021 and ended in September 2024. Adept Property Maintenance Ltd wrote a report dated 13 May 2024 which set out that the house needed significant maintenance. The tenants left after the parties negotiated an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy. Almost a year after the end of the tenancy the landlord filed an application for rent arrears. The tenants filed a cross application asking for compensation and exemplary damages. The questions I have to decide include: • Do the tenants owe rent? • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain? • Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards? • Did the landlord mishandle the bond?

Do the tenants owe rent?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. I have read all the emails between the parties about ending the tenancy early. I find the tenants all agreed to pay rent for 10 weeks until 3 September 2024 or until new tenants were found.
While the parties were negotiating [Tenant 1] asked for his rent to be reduced by 25% because of the maintenance issues. I can see from the email chain that this was never agreed to. I note the tenants are jointly and severally liable, which means they are all responsible for any rent owed. This is because they are all named on the tenancy agreement or on the variation.
The tenants agreed the landlord would have access for maintenance - including painting and repairs - during the 10 weeks to 3 September. This arrangement was highly unusual because the landlord essentially had possession but the tenants continued to pay rent. I am mindful that this was agreed by all the tenants as a way out of the fixed term tenancy, and most of the rent was paid.

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached its obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair required by section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The report written by Adept shows the house needed maintenance. Two bedrooms in particular were damp, and there was moisture ingress through the window flashing in one of the rooms. The window in the other room was also in a very poor condition. The exterior cladding was in a very poor condition. The report concluded:
I find the tenants have proved the house was in need of urgent maintenance and this affected the tenants. I find there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying rent for a house they could not use as intended. I find compensation in the amount of $200 a week to be fair in the circumstances. The tenants have proved there was a loss of amenity from 4 February 2024. I find the loss of amenity continued to 3 September 2024 because the tenants were paying full rent to that date, but not able to use the house as intended.
I also find I should allow exemplary damages because the landlord 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) RTA.
The landlord said it never ignored the requirements of the RTA and there were no actual water leaks. However, I am persuaded the landlord acted intentionally because it took 13 weeks for the Adept report to be done. I find this was too long given the tenants clear requests for help and the poor condition of the outside of the house. The affect for the tenants was stress, inconvenience, cold rooms, poor health, rooms that could be re-let, and the early end of the fixed term tenancy. It is in tenants’ interests that houses are safe to live in and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance with the RTA. I allow $2,400 in exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware if any previous orders against the landlord.
The tenants submitted there was also a breach of section 49 RTA which requires parties to mitigate loss. The tenants said the landlord’s inaction meant the tenants were often waiting months for a reply, and the landlord did not take steps to minimise the rent arrears after tenants moved out. I find any loss arising from a failure to mitigate has been fully addressed by the compensation for loss of amenity. The separate claim for failure to mitigate is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants said there were a number of breaches, including that the heat pump did not work. In reply the landlord said the HHS statements provided to the tenants were correct and that the house complied with all the requirements. Also, it was a property manager who asked the tenants if the heat pump was working after receiving an email complaining the house was cold. The tenants have not provided me with any supporting evidence that the landlord breached the HHS standards, and this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord mishandle the bond?

The tenants said the way the landlord handled the paper work following the change of tenants was inadequate and this caused delays at the end of the tenancy. This is the tenants claim to prove and I have not been provided with any supporting evidence. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310766 — net $4,282.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 September 2024	$4,145.14		Rent arrears to 3 September 2024
weeks		$6,000.00	weeks
Exemplary damages: Maintenance breach		$2,400.00	Maintenance breach
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,145.14	$8,428.00
Net award		$4,282.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,282.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Nz Property Agents Limited and Sarah Drought must pay [The tenant/s] $4,282.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord company was bought out by another company after the end of the tenancy. NZ Property Agents Limited is still a registered company. The current director, Mr Heeran, attended the hearing. Mr Heeran could not confirm if the Trust named on the tenancy agreement was still correct and so the owner at the time has been named. I note the owner is named on the latest variation of tenancy. The tenants were all served with the applications and [Tenant 1] represented the tenants.
This tenancy started in November 2021 and ended in September 2024. Adept Property Maintenance Ltd wrote a report dated 13 May 2024 which set out that the house needed significant maintenance. The tenants left after the parties negotiated an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy. Almost a year after the end of the tenancy the landlord filed an application for rent arrears. The tenants filed a cross application asking for compensation and exemplary damages. The questions I have to decide include: • Do the tenants owe rent? • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain? • Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards? • Did the landlord mishandle the bond?

Do the tenants owe rent?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. I have read all the emails between the parties about ending the tenancy early. I find the tenants all agreed to pay rent for 10 weeks until 3 September 2024 or until new tenants were found.
While the parties were negotiating [Tenant 1] asked for his rent to be reduced by 25% because of the maintenance issues. I can see from the email chain that this was never agreed to. I note the tenants are jointly and severally liable, which means they are all responsible for any rent owed. This is because they are all named on the tenancy agreement or on the variation.
The tenants agreed the landlord would have access for maintenance - including painting and repairs - during the 10 weeks to 3 September. This arrangement was highly unusual because the landlord essentially had possession but the tenants continued to pay rent. I am mindful that this was agreed by all the tenants as a way out of the fixed term tenancy, and most of the rent was paid.

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached its obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair required by section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The report written by Adept shows the house needed maintenance. Two bedrooms in particular were damp, and there was moisture ingress through the window flashing in one of the rooms. The window in the other room was also in a very poor condition. The exterior cladding was in a very poor condition. The report concluded:
I find the tenants have proved the house was in need of urgent maintenance and this affected the tenants. I find there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying rent for a house they could not use as intended. I find compensation in the amount of $200 a week to be fair in the circumstances. The tenants have proved there was a loss of amenity from 4 February 2024. I find the loss of amenity continued to 3 September 2024 because the tenants were paying full rent to that date, but not able to use the house as intended.
I also find I should allow exemplary damages because the landlord 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) RTA.
The landlord said it never ignored the requirements of the RTA and there were no actual water leaks. However, I am persuaded the landlord acted intentionally because it took 13 weeks for the Adept report to be done. I find this was too long given the tenants clear requests for help and the poor condition of the outside of the house. The affect for the tenants was stress, inconvenience, cold rooms, poor health, rooms that could be re-let, and the early end of the fixed term tenancy. It is in tenants’ interests that houses are safe to live in and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance with the RTA. I allow $2,400 in exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware if any previous orders against the landlord.
The tenants submitted there was also a breach of section 49 RTA which requires parties to mitigate loss. The tenants said the landlord’s inaction meant the tenants were often waiting months for a reply, and the landlord did not take steps to minimise the rent arrears after tenants moved out. I find any loss arising from a failure to mitigate has been fully addressed by the compensation for loss of amenity. The separate claim for failure to mitigate is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants said there were a number of breaches, including that the heat pump did not work. In reply the landlord said the HHS statements provided to the tenants were correct and that the house complied with all the requirements. Also, it was a property manager who asked the tenants if the heat pump was working after receiving an email complaining the house was cold. The tenants have not provided me with any supporting evidence that the landlord breached the HHS standards, and this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord mishandle the bond?

The tenants said the way the landlord handled the paper work following the change of tenants was inadequate and this caused delays at the end of the tenancy. This is the tenants claim to prove and I have not been provided with any supporting evidence. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310766 — Exemplary damages at 9 Colombo Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310766 — Exemplary damages at 9 Colombo Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe rent?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord mishandle the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe rent?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord mishandle the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions