What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4699355?

The tribunal order states: Caroline Brigid Taege must pay The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust

How much money was awarded in case 4699355?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,790.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699355?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699355?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10326852-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4699355?

The tribunal order states: Caroline Brigid Taege must pay The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust

How much money was awarded in case 4699355?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,790.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699355?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699355?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10326852-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10, 325 West Coast Road, Glen Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4699355 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4699355 — net $790.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 6 October 2021-9 November 2021	$1,790.00		Rent arrears 6 October 2021-9 November 2021
Exemplary damages – failure to maintain		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – failure to maintain
Total award	$1,790.00	$1,000.00
Net award	$790.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$790.00

Order

Caroline Brigid Taege must pay The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust $790.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The remaining applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings.
The tenant has applied for a declaration as to the rent arrears owed, compensation/exemplary damages for unconscionable rent arrears, failure to maintain, breach of quiet enjoyment and entry without notice.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy is a social housing tenancy. The landlord is an approved provider of social housing through the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).
This allows the landlord to provide housing to people who qualify for income related rents. The appropriate market rent and the income related rents for each tenant are set by MSD and notified to the landlord. The tenant pays the assessed income related rent to the landlord and MSD pays the rest (up to market rent).
There are obligations on social housing tenants to ensure that the MSD is kept informed of changes to their circumstances that may affect the rent they pay and their ongoing qualification for social housing. Tenants are also required to provide evidence of their income for the purposes of determining their rent. Failure to do so will result in the tenant being required to pay market rent. It is important to note that these obligations are owed to HUD/MSD and not the landlord directly. The landlord has no ability to determine income related rent or to set market rent.
In this case, the tenant was referred to the landlord for social housing. The landlord provided her with information on social housing by email on 3 August 2020. This was taken from the MSD website and that is noted on the web address at the bottom of each page. The landlord also provided the tenant with a list of social housing providers in Auckland to assist her in finding accommodation.
The tenant completed an application for housing with the landlord which included confirmation that she was on the HUD/MSD register.
There were two periods where the tenant was charged market rent – 6 October 2021 to 9 November 2021 (the 2021 period) and 22 February 2023 to 25 August 2023 (the 2023 period). For the 2023 period, the tenant applied for a review and backdating of the income related rent, which was successful.
No such application for review was made for the 2021 period. The tenant appears to believe that because she was assessed as continuing to qualify for income related rent and because the market rent was backdated in 2023, no application was required for 2021.
Further, as indicated by this application, the tenant believes that the landlord is responsible for this situation, and that the landlord has unfairly claims rent arrears on the basis of market rent for the 2021 period, and has refused to waive those arrears.
That is not the case. As stated, market rent, the tenant eligibility for income related rent and the rent payable by the tenant are all set by MSD. The tenant is required to provide necessary information to MSD for the purposes of income related rent assessments and eligibility assessments. The tenant was advised on this on a number of occasions – including when she approached the landlord in August 2020, and almost certainly when she was assessed for the HUD/MSD register. The landlord has re-iterated this many times throughout the correspondence I have been provided.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the rent arrears for the 2021 period are owing. These are calculated on the basis of the difference between the income related rent prior to the 2021 and the market rent of $420 per week for that period.
The material provided to me is not clear enough to determine whether rent is in arrears (the landlord’s position) or in credit (the tenant’s position) beyond that point. Accordingly, I make this finding for the 2021 period only. No findings are made in relation to the other periods. Failure to maintain
Caroline Brigid Taege 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.
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 following table shows the repairs sought and the date completed. This table is, as far as I can tell, agreed by both parties. ItemDate notifiedDate repaired Loose tap downstairs kitchenette 3/11/202024/10/2023 Carpet tacks exposed3/11/2020Remains outstanding Fire alarms checked/replaced16/8/202324/10/2023 Leaky plumbing – kitchen28/3/202324/10/2023 Stuck shower plug28/3/202324/10/2023 Oven not working16/8/202323/12/2023 Heat pump not working28/3/2023Following initial hearing in January 2024 Broken floor tire3/11/2023Following initial hearing in January 2024 Inorganic collection28/3/2023 Weed waste bin28/3/2023 Security camera installation13/9/2023
In relation to the inorganic collection and weed waste bin these are not maintenance issues relating to this premises, and they are outside the control of the landlord as they largely relate to Auckland Council land and obligations.
In relation to the security camera, this relates to the question about whether there was notice of camera’s being installed at the entrance to the road these properties are on, albeit on the landlord’s property. The landlord says they are dummy cameras, designed to deter anti-social behaviour or crime from members of the public. I consider this is a matter for the Privacy Commissioner rather than the Tribunal.
In relation to the remaining items, there have been delays of varying lengths, in completing the works. There are various reasons for this, including the impact of covid-19 and the availability of tradespeople, the processes the landlord has to go through to have work orders approved and issues with arranging access for tradespeople.
While I have sympathy for the landlord, in relation to the process for approval, this has been too long in these cases. I would grant some leeway, but not delays extending weeks.
I am concerned about the allegations of the tenant denying access. She denies this, and in the most recent example says that she did not deny access, she simply asked the tradesman to come back later in the day. This is, of course not particularly realistic when dealing with contracted tradespeople. While landlords are able to give notice and enter a premises for the purpose of attending to repairs, the reasons given by the tenant included her working from home, including telephone and video meetings, so I consider the landlord was right to respect that. Issues with access must, of course, reduce the culpability of the landlord.
Ultimately, I consider the landlord has not met its obligations under s45 of the RTA. 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 consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to attend to the repair work. They were on notice that maintenance was required and did not act. I do not, however, attribute this to any nefarious intent.
There is no clear information on the impact of the failure to maintain on the tenant. Much of the emotional impact appears to have arisen from the tenant’s feelings of insecurity in her tenancy as a result of the rent arrears situation. However, I do accept that the tenant has suffered the frustration of raising issues of repair with the landlord and not having them dealt with. Further, I accept that the lack of working heat pump during the winter months affected the tenant’s comfort and electricity costs.
Finally, this is a matter where the public interest considerations go both ways. On the one hand, there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations, particularly in relation to maintenance. I also consider there is a public interest in ensuring that charitable organisations, such as the landlord, are able to spend funds on their community work they are involved in, rather than payment of exemplary damages. This does not, in any way, mean that charitable organisations are less culpable, or that they should be excused for committing unlawful acts. However, s109(3) requires consideration of whether making an award is “just”. I consider that extends to the quantum of the award also.
On balance, I consider that an award of exemplary damages is warranted, however I consider that it should be reduced to reflect the access and public interest factors set out. Accordingly, I award $1000.00. That amount may be credited to the rent arrears awarded and included in the rent summary as a payment. Unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment
These applications were raised very late. As advised, I was not prepared to allow the tenant to amend the application to include these.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4699355 — net $790.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 6 October 2021-9 November 2021	$1,790.00		Rent arrears 6 October 2021-9 November 2021
Exemplary damages – failure to maintain		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – failure to maintain
Total award	$1,790.00	$1,000.00
Net award	$790.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$790.00

Order

Caroline Brigid Taege must pay The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust $790.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The remaining applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings.
The tenant has applied for a declaration as to the rent arrears owed, compensation/exemplary damages for unconscionable rent arrears, failure to maintain, breach of quiet enjoyment and entry without notice.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy is a social housing tenancy. The landlord is an approved provider of social housing through the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).
This allows the landlord to provide housing to people who qualify for income related rents. The appropriate market rent and the income related rents for each tenant are set by MSD and notified to the landlord. The tenant pays the assessed income related rent to the landlord and MSD pays the rest (up to market rent).
There are obligations on social housing tenants to ensure that the MSD is kept informed of changes to their circumstances that may affect the rent they pay and their ongoing qualification for social housing. Tenants are also required to provide evidence of their income for the purposes of determining their rent. Failure to do so will result in the tenant being required to pay market rent. It is important to note that these obligations are owed to HUD/MSD and not the landlord directly. The landlord has no ability to determine income related rent or to set market rent.
In this case, the tenant was referred to the landlord for social housing. The landlord provided her with information on social housing by email on 3 August 2020. This was taken from the MSD website and that is noted on the web address at the bottom of each page. The landlord also provided the tenant with a list of social housing providers in Auckland to assist her in finding accommodation.
The tenant completed an application for housing with the landlord which included confirmation that she was on the HUD/MSD register.
There were two periods where the tenant was charged market rent – 6 October 2021 to 9 November 2021 (the 2021 period) and 22 February 2023 to 25 August 2023 (the 2023 period). For the 2023 period, the tenant applied for a review and backdating of the income related rent, which was successful.
No such application for review was made for the 2021 period. The tenant appears to believe that because she was assessed as continuing to qualify for income related rent and because the market rent was backdated in 2023, no application was required for 2021.
Further, as indicated by this application, the tenant believes that the landlord is responsible for this situation, and that the landlord has unfairly claims rent arrears on the basis of market rent for the 2021 period, and has refused to waive those arrears.
That is not the case. As stated, market rent, the tenant eligibility for income related rent and the rent payable by the tenant are all set by MSD. The tenant is required to provide necessary information to MSD for the purposes of income related rent assessments and eligibility assessments. The tenant was advised on this on a number of occasions – including when she approached the landlord in August 2020, and almost certainly when she was assessed for the HUD/MSD register. The landlord has re-iterated this many times throughout the correspondence I have been provided.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the rent arrears for the 2021 period are owing. These are calculated on the basis of the difference between the income related rent prior to the 2021 and the market rent of $420 per week for that period.
The material provided to me is not clear enough to determine whether rent is in arrears (the landlord’s position) or in credit (the tenant’s position) beyond that point. Accordingly, I make this finding for the 2021 period only. No findings are made in relation to the other periods. Failure to maintain
Caroline Brigid Taege 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.
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 following table shows the repairs sought and the date completed. This table is, as far as I can tell, agreed by both parties. ItemDate notifiedDate repaired Loose tap downstairs kitchenette 3/11/202024/10/2023 Carpet tacks exposed3/11/2020Remains outstanding Fire alarms checked/replaced16/8/202324/10/2023 Leaky plumbing – kitchen28/3/202324/10/2023 Stuck shower plug28/3/202324/10/2023 Oven not working16/8/202323/12/2023 Heat pump not working28/3/2023Following initial hearing in January 2024 Broken floor tire3/11/2023Following initial hearing in January 2024 Inorganic collection28/3/2023 Weed waste bin28/3/2023 Security camera installation13/9/2023
In relation to the inorganic collection and weed waste bin these are not maintenance issues relating to this premises, and they are outside the control of the landlord as they largely relate to Auckland Council land and obligations.
In relation to the security camera, this relates to the question about whether there was notice of camera’s being installed at the entrance to the road these properties are on, albeit on the landlord’s property. The landlord says they are dummy cameras, designed to deter anti-social behaviour or crime from members of the public. I consider this is a matter for the Privacy Commissioner rather than the Tribunal.
In relation to the remaining items, there have been delays of varying lengths, in completing the works. There are various reasons for this, including the impact of covid-19 and the availability of tradespeople, the processes the landlord has to go through to have work orders approved and issues with arranging access for tradespeople.
While I have sympathy for the landlord, in relation to the process for approval, this has been too long in these cases. I would grant some leeway, but not delays extending weeks.
I am concerned about the allegations of the tenant denying access. She denies this, and in the most recent example says that she did not deny access, she simply asked the tradesman to come back later in the day. This is, of course not particularly realistic when dealing with contracted tradespeople. While landlords are able to give notice and enter a premises for the purpose of attending to repairs, the reasons given by the tenant included her working from home, including telephone and video meetings, so I consider the landlord was right to respect that. Issues with access must, of course, reduce the culpability of the landlord.
Ultimately, I consider the landlord has not met its obligations under s45 of the RTA. 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 consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to attend to the repair work. They were on notice that maintenance was required and did not act. I do not, however, attribute this to any nefarious intent.
There is no clear information on the impact of the failure to maintain on the tenant. Much of the emotional impact appears to have arisen from the tenant’s feelings of insecurity in her tenancy as a result of the rent arrears situation. However, I do accept that the tenant has suffered the frustration of raising issues of repair with the landlord and not having them dealt with. Further, I accept that the lack of working heat pump during the winter months affected the tenant’s comfort and electricity costs.
Finally, this is a matter where the public interest considerations go both ways. On the one hand, there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations, particularly in relation to maintenance. I also consider there is a public interest in ensuring that charitable organisations, such as the landlord, are able to spend funds on their community work they are involved in, rather than payment of exemplary damages. This does not, in any way, mean that charitable organisations are less culpable, or that they should be excused for committing unlawful acts. However, s109(3) requires consideration of whether making an award is “just”. I consider that extends to the quantum of the award also.
On balance, I consider that an award of exemplary damages is warranted, however I consider that it should be reduced to reflect the access and public interest factors set out. Accordingly, I award $1000.00. That amount may be credited to the rent arrears awarded and included in the rent summary as a payment. Unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment
These applications were raised very late. As advised, I was not prepared to allow the tenant to amend the application to include these.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699355 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 10, 325 West Coast Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699355 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 10, 325 West Coast Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions