What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347741 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 5347741?

Property Damage: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347741?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12915239-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347741 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 5347741?

Property Damage: $2,880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347741?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12915239-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 McLennan Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347741 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347741 — net $2,908.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$2,880.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,908.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,908.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited Acting On Behalf Of Owner Ajuna Holdings Ltd. must pay [The tenant/s] $2,908.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 23 September 2022 and ended on 22 September 2024.
The tenant has applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards and for compensation in relation to maintenance issues. I have awarded exemplary damages in relation to these claims. Section 45
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has 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 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.
The landlord failed to carry out some maintenance and took too long to repair the kitchen leak. I find they have 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.
When the tenants viewed the premises in August 2022, they were advised that the flooring in the hallway, lounge, dining and kitchen would be replaced before the tenancy began. This did not occur. Because of this the landlord gave the tenant a two-week rent relief. However, this did not address the flooring issue which was clearly present at the beginning of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord said that there was no evidence that the floor should be replaced. I consider the rent relief as acceptance by the landlord that there were issues with the flooring, that the tenant was advised the floor would be replaced and this may have been a factor in the tenant accepting this tenancy.
There were many maintenance issues during the two-year tenancy. On occasions the landlord acted in a timely and reasonable manner in addressing these issues. However, there were times where there was significant delay for urgent maintenance and there were sometimes when maintenance issues were not addressed until after the tenancy ended.
The tenant advised the landlord in relation to a kitchen leak and damaged flooring in the kitchen. One of the floorboards was re glued in November 2023. The potential kitchen leak was raised during a routine inspection in March 2024. This is mentioned in the inspection report. The tenant followed up with an email on 1 July 2024 where she advised that one of the contractors thought pipes may be leaking. It was not until the end of July 2024 that the landlord employed a plumber to investigate the issue. This came soon after the tenant’s father advised the landlord that mushrooms were growing in the gaps between the floorboards in the kitchen.
The leak was located and some of the flooring was cut out. A large piece of plywood was placed where the floorboards had been removed as a temporary solution. Unfortunately, this meant that the dishwasher sat in the middle of the kitchen floor and the tenant had difficulty opening the fridge due to the thickness of the plywood.
The landlord provided the tenant a 10% rent reduction from 30 July 2024 until the end of the tenancy due to the inconvenience caused by the flooring being removed.
Another issue which the landlord did not address during the tenancy was leaking around the French doors where there is a large crack in the wall. On either side of the doors large water bubbles formed under the wall paint. The tenant said that nothing was done in relation to these, and the crack was never fixed. I note that there is a considerable amount of mould on the ceiling above the crack.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS insulation standard, ventilation standard, draught stopping standard and moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 27 May 2021 prepared by Affordable Energy Solutions. That report records that the premises are compliant in relation to the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenant submits that there are inconsistencies in the report. I refer to the rangehood where the report states that it is ventilated to the outside but the photograph in the report is of a blank wall. The tenant produced a photograph from December 2023 where it shows the same wall with a vent which the tenant says was added after the tenancy started. The landlord had no evidence of when the ventilation from the kitchen was ducted to the outside.
The report says that the drainage is compliant but the tenant stated that the gutter would overflow and produced photographs from July 2024 where there is dripping from the gutter, causing green organic growth and elsewhere there were weeds growing in the gutter. The landlord said that the gutter was cleaned in August 2024.
In relation to the insulation, the report records that the property is compliant but when a downlight that was leaking had been removed the tenant put her phone into the ceiling cavity. The photographs from the phone show an area with no ceiling insulation. This is the ceiling above the hallway. The landlord had no evidence in relation to where or when the insulation was installed.
In relation to the draughts, the report records compliance but the tenant produced photographs showing gaps when the windows are closed and the March 2024 routine inspection records cracked glass which I understand was never fixed. The tenant said that she raised the issue of unreasonable gaps around the windows in February 2023. Some of the gaps were filled with foam but apparently some were not. The landlord confirmed that some draught stopping was carried out in April 2023, which suggests that either the HH report was not accurate, or the gaps had developed over a two-year period.
It is not clear from the Healthy Homes report produced by the landlord that the property was compliant. Even though the report was dated from the year before the tenancy began it had inconsistencies.
I consider that the landlord has breached section 45 of the Act as set out above. The tenant submits that the living condition at the property was not healthy due to persistent mould and fungal growth, cold from draughts. The tenant produced photographs of belongings damaged by mould growth.
The landlord was aware of these issues and on occasion responded appropriately but over all there were many issues that were not dealt with at all or in a timely manner. It is in the public interest for landlords to ensure that the living conditions for tenants are healthy and comfortable and comply with the Healthy Homes standards. The landlord should have taken further steps to ensure compliance.
Taking account of the evidence I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $2,880.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant also sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the successful party 1 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347741 — net $2,908.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$2,880.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,908.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,908.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited Acting On Behalf Of Owner Ajuna Holdings Ltd. must pay [The tenant/s] $2,908.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 23 September 2022 and ended on 22 September 2024.
The tenant has applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards and for compensation in relation to maintenance issues. I have awarded exemplary damages in relation to these claims. Section 45
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has 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 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.
The landlord failed to carry out some maintenance and took too long to repair the kitchen leak. I find they have 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.
When the tenants viewed the premises in August 2022, they were advised that the flooring in the hallway, lounge, dining and kitchen would be replaced before the tenancy began. This did not occur. Because of this the landlord gave the tenant a two-week rent relief. However, this did not address the flooring issue which was clearly present at the beginning of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord said that there was no evidence that the floor should be replaced. I consider the rent relief as acceptance by the landlord that there were issues with the flooring, that the tenant was advised the floor would be replaced and this may have been a factor in the tenant accepting this tenancy.
There were many maintenance issues during the two-year tenancy. On occasions the landlord acted in a timely and reasonable manner in addressing these issues. However, there were times where there was significant delay for urgent maintenance and there were sometimes when maintenance issues were not addressed until after the tenancy ended.
The tenant advised the landlord in relation to a kitchen leak and damaged flooring in the kitchen. One of the floorboards was re glued in November 2023. The potential kitchen leak was raised during a routine inspection in March 2024. This is mentioned in the inspection report. The tenant followed up with an email on 1 July 2024 where she advised that one of the contractors thought pipes may be leaking. It was not until the end of July 2024 that the landlord employed a plumber to investigate the issue. This came soon after the tenant’s father advised the landlord that mushrooms were growing in the gaps between the floorboards in the kitchen.
The leak was located and some of the flooring was cut out. A large piece of plywood was placed where the floorboards had been removed as a temporary solution. Unfortunately, this meant that the dishwasher sat in the middle of the kitchen floor and the tenant had difficulty opening the fridge due to the thickness of the plywood.
The landlord provided the tenant a 10% rent reduction from 30 July 2024 until the end of the tenancy due to the inconvenience caused by the flooring being removed.
Another issue which the landlord did not address during the tenancy was leaking around the French doors where there is a large crack in the wall. On either side of the doors large water bubbles formed under the wall paint. The tenant said that nothing was done in relation to these, and the crack was never fixed. I note that there is a considerable amount of mould on the ceiling above the crack.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS insulation standard, ventilation standard, draught stopping standard and moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 27 May 2021 prepared by Affordable Energy Solutions. That report records that the premises are compliant in relation to the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenant submits that there are inconsistencies in the report. I refer to the rangehood where the report states that it is ventilated to the outside but the photograph in the report is of a blank wall. The tenant produced a photograph from December 2023 where it shows the same wall with a vent which the tenant says was added after the tenancy started. The landlord had no evidence of when the ventilation from the kitchen was ducted to the outside.
The report says that the drainage is compliant but the tenant stated that the gutter would overflow and produced photographs from July 2024 where there is dripping from the gutter, causing green organic growth and elsewhere there were weeds growing in the gutter. The landlord said that the gutter was cleaned in August 2024.
In relation to the insulation, the report records that the property is compliant but when a downlight that was leaking had been removed the tenant put her phone into the ceiling cavity. The photographs from the phone show an area with no ceiling insulation. This is the ceiling above the hallway. The landlord had no evidence in relation to where or when the insulation was installed.
In relation to the draughts, the report records compliance but the tenant produced photographs showing gaps when the windows are closed and the March 2024 routine inspection records cracked glass which I understand was never fixed. The tenant said that she raised the issue of unreasonable gaps around the windows in February 2023. Some of the gaps were filled with foam but apparently some were not. The landlord confirmed that some draught stopping was carried out in April 2023, which suggests that either the HH report was not accurate, or the gaps had developed over a two-year period.
It is not clear from the Healthy Homes report produced by the landlord that the property was compliant. Even though the report was dated from the year before the tenancy began it had inconsistencies.
I consider that the landlord has breached section 45 of the Act as set out above. The tenant submits that the living condition at the property was not healthy due to persistent mould and fungal growth, cold from draughts. The tenant produced photographs of belongings damaged by mould growth.
The landlord was aware of these issues and on occasion responded appropriately but over all there were many issues that were not dealt with at all or in a timely manner. It is in the public interest for landlords to ensure that the living conditions for tenants are healthy and comfortable and comply with the Healthy Homes standards. The landlord should have taken further steps to ensure compliance.
Taking account of the evidence I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $2,880.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant also sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the successful party 1 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347741 — Exemplary damages at 21 McLennan Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347741 — Exemplary damages at 21 McLennan Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

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