What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4612530?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4612530?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612530?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9400969-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4612530?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4612530?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612530?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9400969-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 16 Warren Avenue, Three Kings, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4612530 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612530 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Exemplary Damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary Damages
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612530 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Exemplary Damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary Damages
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s application for termination is allowed by consent.
The tenancy of Tristan John Gibson, John James Burford and Britain McCarther Swarbrick at Unit/Flat 3, 16 Warren Avenue, Three Kings, Auckland 1042 is terminated by the consent of both parties, and possession is granted to Immanuel Enterprises Limited T/As Staywell Property Management As Agent For Courtney Huang, at 11:59pm on Monday 18 September 2023.
Immanuel Enterprises Limited T/As Staywell Property Management As Agent For Courtney Huang must pay Tristan John Gibson, John James Burford and Britain McCarther Swarbrick $1,520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Tristan John Gibson, John James Burford and Britain McCarther Swarbrick claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Tenant’s application
This is an application by the tenants in respect of a three-bedroom, two storey house which they claim was not provided to them in a reasonable state of repair at the beginning of the tenancy. They also stated that the premises suffered water damage in late January this year because of the Auckland severe weather event.
The tenancy began on 4 January 2023 and was a fixed term agreement for 12 months.
The upper level consisted of two bedrooms, kitchen, lounge, dining area, shower and toilet. The downstairs area consisted of a bedroom, garage (which connects to the bedroom), a storage room and a small kitchenette.
The tenants state that over the last seven months they have had to live in and experience substandard living conditions and a home that does not meet basic healthy home standards. This has had an impact on their health, mental well being and their finances. They say they have reached out to the landlord numerous times regarding poor drainage, damaged and blocked gutters, draughts, and no smoke alarm downstairs. They say that none of the issues were taken seriously by the landlord.
The tenants claim that there were maintenance issues at the start of the tenancy. They say that there was a draught through the house and large gaps around the doors and windows. When one of the windows was closed there was a gap in the top right-hand corner of the window. The front door had a one- inch gap at the bottom. Water would enter under the front door in bad weather.
They further state that the heat pump was inadequate to heat the house and that the gutters would overflow in heavy rain.
On 27 January 2023 Auckland experienced a severe weather event. The tenants claim that as a result of this weather event the carpet in the downstairs bedroom was completely soaked and had to be thrown out. Attempts were made to contact the landlord in respect of the carpet. They say there was no response from the landlord for approximately five days. One of the tenants was left to deal with the wet carpet. After several days of little success the tenant was forced to remove the carpet and pay for disposal due to the damp smell.
As a result of the flooding one of the tenants moved out and stayed with his partner for approximately one week immediately after the flooding. The upstairs area of the house was not impacted by the flooding which meant the remaining tenants were able to stay at the property.
At the date of this hearing the downstairs area of the house was yet to be repaired. The downstairs bedroom also had laminate flooring with tile flooring underneath. The tenant stated that part of the laminate flooring started to bubble and was still wet in some areas. Some mould was forming in the kitchenette area.
They further stated that weeks passed by with phone calls unanswered and issues unresolved. Three months later, following another day of heavy rain the tenant arrived home to find his bedroom impacted by water ingress. Various email exchanges between the tenants and the property manager took place. The tenants then had to take it upon themselves to organise a suitable day and time for a builder to attend.
The builder who attended confirmed that the gutters were broken and blocked; the roof unsealed and no exterior drainage. The tenants say that the landlord did not take the builder’s recommendations seriously, instead suggesting that they could move out.
On 7 June 2023 the tenants were faced with an additional problem of a burst hot water cylinder. This caused a water leak from the upstairs level. Photographic evidence of water running down the side of the stairs was provided during the hearing.
The tenant stated that during these months the downstairs bedroom was cold, damp and mouldy. They did their best by running heaters and dehumidifiers. The tenants say that this has had an impact on their health.
The Tribunal received viva voce evidence from a witness for the tenants. The witness stated that she lives next door to the tenants. She stated that the owner of the premises undertook some renovations prior to the tenants moving in. The gutters were not replaced. She also stated that she was surprised that it had taken so long to repair the flood damage.
The tenants stated that there was no Healthy Homes assessment carried out at the start of the tenancy. One of the tenants requested his own assessment. A copy of this report dated 3 June 2023 by Oncore Limited was provided to the Tribunal in support of their claim. This Healthy Homes report highlighted a number of shortcomings with the premises which should have been addressed in the very beginning. According to the report the following areas were deemed non-compliant: moisture ingress and drainage; drainage and guttering; draught stopping; heating; roof damage and smoke alarms. The report was comprehensive and compelling.
The tenants stated that a request was made to the landlord for a copy of the insurance policy however this was not provided. The landlord’s cross application:
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy so that the owner can have access to the premises and begin the repair process. The landlord also claims that the tenants are troublemakers and consumed by greed and do not want to move out.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness Maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply
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.
From the evidence presented in support of the tenant’s application I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the property in a timely manner. There is ample evidence before me of numerous attempts by the tenants to have these health and safety issues sorted. Having sighted the photographic evidence in support I am satisfied that the landlord has breached its obligations.
I also make an observation in respect of the landlord’s unprofessional email responses. On 31 May 2023 the landlord responded to an email from the tenant stating “you are just being opportunistic, consumed by greed, and going all out to grab the landlord’s money. Your hypocrisy is also starting to show. You say the house is uninhabitable, but you refuse to leave. By refusing to do even the slightest logical thing to reduce your discomfort, you have just minimised your chances of winning this argument”.
The Residential Tenancies Act is very clear in respect of landlord obligations. Premises must be in an acceptable state not only at the start of a tenancy but also maintained accordingly throughout. They must respond and attend to maintenance issues promptly and professionally. It is my view that the landlord has failed to do this.
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.
I find the tenant’s claim proven and award exemplary damages to reflect this.
Because Tristan John Gibson, John James Burford, Britain McCarther Swarbrick has wholly succeeded with their claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
I do not grant the landlord suppression of name given that they have been unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612530 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 16 Warren Avenue, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612530 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 16 Warren Avenue, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions