What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4687589?

The tribunal order states: Jamie Wotherspoon As The Trustee For The G & M Wotherspoon Family Trust

How much money was awarded in case 4687589?

Property Damage: $1,455.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687589?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10475166-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4687589?

The tribunal order states: Jamie Wotherspoon As The Trustee For The G & M Wotherspoon Family Trust

How much money was awarded in case 4687589?

Property Damage: $1,455.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687589?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10475166-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Dawson Road, Snells Beach 0920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4687589 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4687589 — net $1,475.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$1,455.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,475.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,475.44

Order

Jamie Wotherspoon As The Trustee For The G & M Wotherspoon Family Trust must pay Andrew Iain George Brown $1,475.44 immediately.
The application for a work order is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by Audio Visual Link (AVL) as he is no longer living in Auckland, although his representative attended in person. The landlord also attended in person.
The tenancy began in September 2019. The parties were not able to confirm the date that the tenancy ended but it was sometime between September and November 2023.
The tenant applied for a work order in relation to mould, insulation and a broken heat pump. As the tenancy has ended a work order is no longer required and that claim is dismissed.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards. As the tenancy began in September 2019 the landlord only needed to comply with the insulation standards.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 12 December 2023. That report confirms that the premises are compliant in relation to insulation. The premises have underfloor insulation which complies with the standard and is exempt for the ceiling insulation.
There is an insulation statement in the Tenancy Agreement signed by the parties on 4 September 2019. That statement does not contain the R-value (Bulk insulation value) for the insulation but that is more of an issue with the Tenancy Agreement rather than compliance with the Healthy Homes standards.
Given the above, the landlord is not in breach in respect of the Healthy Homes standards. That part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
One of the main issues for the tenant was water ingress. There was a significant leak in the premises in May 2023 and the tenant advised the landlord. The roof had to be completely replaced as a roofing specialist advised that it was beyond repair. The roof was replaced around 17 July 2023. After replacement of the roof further repairs needed to be carried out such as replacing the gib board and painting as well as drying the carpet.
The tenant says that the moisture levels were significantly high although I was unable to read the moisture levels recorded in a photograph. It took two weeks for the work to be carried out and the carpet to be dried.
While the landlord acted in a reasonable amount of time following the May 2023 leak my concern is in relation to maintenance issues from the beginning of the tenancy until this date. The tenant said that the landlord carried out no maintenance during the tenancy. I note that the tenant had repaired the roof himself prior to the significant weather events in Auckland in early 2023. The tenant had used a bitumen tape to repair the roof which he said was second hand and rusty.
Photographs were produced showing the underside of the metal roof. There was significant rusting which the landlord says would not have been visible before the ceiling was removed. The landlord does not have any evidence to support this because he did not employ a professional to assess the roof at any time prior to the 2023 leak. The roof had previously leaked because the tenant had carried out repairs that the landlord was aware of. It was likely because of these repairs that there was no leaking in early 2023.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation 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 maintain the roof. If he had maintained the roof it would not have been necessary for the tenant to carry out repairs himself. The landlord also should have employed a professional to assess the repairs that were carried out by the tenant and whether they were adequate. I note that the tenant is not a roofer. 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.
The landlord was aware that the roof required repairing and that the tenant had carried out repairs. If the landlord had employed a professional in the early stages, the roof may have been replaced earlier or at least repaired adequately to avoid the significant leak in May 2023.
The landlord’s failure to act had a significant impact on the tenant and his family. The tenant says that the premises were cold and there was mould growth. The tenant has health issues which he says were exacerbated by the living conditions. The tenant said the situation was stressful for him. The tenant and his family were significantly inconvenienced by the leak including having to live in one room (which was uncarpeted and did not have leaks) for a period of time. Due to the moisture mushrooms were growing in the room of the tenant’s son.
There was a period where the heat pump didn’t work. The landlord was aware of this but held off repairing it until the water ingress issue was sorted. This meant that the tenant was without heating.
During the tenancy the landlord had agreed to some rent rebate including 9 payments of half rent and three weeks full rent rebate.
I consider that the impact on the tenant surpasses the rent rebate that the landlord previously provided. Taking account of the evidence I consider that an award of $1,455.00 (3 weeks rent) is reasonable.
Because Andrew Iain George Brown has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4687589 — net $1,475.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$1,455.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,475.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,475.44

Order

Jamie Wotherspoon As The Trustee For The G & M Wotherspoon Family Trust must pay Andrew Iain George Brown $1,475.44 immediately.
The application for a work order is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by Audio Visual Link (AVL) as he is no longer living in Auckland, although his representative attended in person. The landlord also attended in person.
The tenancy began in September 2019. The parties were not able to confirm the date that the tenancy ended but it was sometime between September and November 2023.
The tenant applied for a work order in relation to mould, insulation and a broken heat pump. As the tenancy has ended a work order is no longer required and that claim is dismissed.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards. As the tenancy began in September 2019 the landlord only needed to comply with the insulation standards.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 12 December 2023. That report confirms that the premises are compliant in relation to insulation. The premises have underfloor insulation which complies with the standard and is exempt for the ceiling insulation.
There is an insulation statement in the Tenancy Agreement signed by the parties on 4 September 2019. That statement does not contain the R-value (Bulk insulation value) for the insulation but that is more of an issue with the Tenancy Agreement rather than compliance with the Healthy Homes standards.
Given the above, the landlord is not in breach in respect of the Healthy Homes standards. That part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
One of the main issues for the tenant was water ingress. There was a significant leak in the premises in May 2023 and the tenant advised the landlord. The roof had to be completely replaced as a roofing specialist advised that it was beyond repair. The roof was replaced around 17 July 2023. After replacement of the roof further repairs needed to be carried out such as replacing the gib board and painting as well as drying the carpet.
The tenant says that the moisture levels were significantly high although I was unable to read the moisture levels recorded in a photograph. It took two weeks for the work to be carried out and the carpet to be dried.
While the landlord acted in a reasonable amount of time following the May 2023 leak my concern is in relation to maintenance issues from the beginning of the tenancy until this date. The tenant said that the landlord carried out no maintenance during the tenancy. I note that the tenant had repaired the roof himself prior to the significant weather events in Auckland in early 2023. The tenant had used a bitumen tape to repair the roof which he said was second hand and rusty.
Photographs were produced showing the underside of the metal roof. There was significant rusting which the landlord says would not have been visible before the ceiling was removed. The landlord does not have any evidence to support this because he did not employ a professional to assess the roof at any time prior to the 2023 leak. The roof had previously leaked because the tenant had carried out repairs that the landlord was aware of. It was likely because of these repairs that there was no leaking in early 2023.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation 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 maintain the roof. If he had maintained the roof it would not have been necessary for the tenant to carry out repairs himself. The landlord also should have employed a professional to assess the repairs that were carried out by the tenant and whether they were adequate. I note that the tenant is not a roofer. 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.
The landlord was aware that the roof required repairing and that the tenant had carried out repairs. If the landlord had employed a professional in the early stages, the roof may have been replaced earlier or at least repaired adequately to avoid the significant leak in May 2023.
The landlord’s failure to act had a significant impact on the tenant and his family. The tenant says that the premises were cold and there was mould growth. The tenant has health issues which he says were exacerbated by the living conditions. The tenant said the situation was stressful for him. The tenant and his family were significantly inconvenienced by the leak including having to live in one room (which was uncarpeted and did not have leaks) for a period of time. Due to the moisture mushrooms were growing in the room of the tenant’s son.
There was a period where the heat pump didn’t work. The landlord was aware of this but held off repairing it until the water ingress issue was sorted. This meant that the tenant was without heating.
During the tenancy the landlord had agreed to some rent rebate including 9 payments of half rent and three weeks full rent rebate.
I consider that the impact on the tenant surpasses the rent rebate that the landlord previously provided. Taking account of the evidence I consider that an award of $1,455.00 (3 weeks rent) is reasonable.
Because Andrew Iain George Brown has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687589 — Exemplary damages at 16 Dawson Road, Snells Beach 0920

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687589 — Exemplary damages at 16 Dawson Road, Snells Beach 0920

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions