What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4729660?

The tribunal order states: Rcr Rwidle Limited Rob Twidle must pay Elliott Carl Newby $5,580.44

How much money was awarded in case 4729660?

Compensation: Rent Reduction 10: $1,960.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4729660?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4729660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10330784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4729660?

The tribunal order states: Rcr Rwidle Limited Rob Twidle must pay Elliott Carl Newby $5,580.44

How much money was awarded in case 4729660?

Compensation: Rent Reduction 10: $1,960.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4729660?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4729660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10330784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

179 Ponsford Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4729660 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4729660 — net $5,580.44 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
Exemplary damages: Breach s 45 RTA	$3,600.00	Breach s 45 RTA
Compensation: Rent reduction 10	$1,960.00	Rent reduction 10
Net award	$5,580.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,580.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4729660 — net $5,580.44 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
Exemplary damages: Breach s 45 RTA	$3,600.00	Breach s 45 RTA
Compensation: Rent reduction 10	$1,960.00	Rent reduction 10
Net award	$5,580.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,580.44

Order

Rcr Rwidle Limited Rob Twidle must pay Elliott Carl Newby $5,580.44 immediately for exemplary damages and compensation, plus reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Exemplary damages: Breach s 45 RTA $3,600.00 Compensation: Rent reduction 10% $1,960.00 Total award $5,580.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $5,580.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application. The tenancy commenced on 29 July 2022 as part of an employment contract. This type of tenancy is called a “service tenancy,” which means that the tenancy is under a term of a work contract between the landlord as employer and tenant as employee.
When the work contract terminated, so did the tenancy on 27 October 2023.
The tenant did not have an opportunity to view the property prior to moving in as other tenants were residing in the house. When the tenant and his family moved into the house, they claimed to have immediately encountered problems. Section 45 RTA
Elliott Carl Newby claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45, a landlord must: provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and 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. Insulation
Elliott Carl Newby claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenant says the property was always damp, cold, and lacked insulation. The tenant has provided the Tribunal with photographs of the inside of the house, which show heavy mould on the walls, windowsills and ceilings, and “weeping” wet windows. The tenant believed that the wet and damp house was because of no or poor insulation.
The landlord provided a report from Snug NZ which confirmed that there was some under floor insulation, but that it was not up to the present specifications. The landlord replaced the insulation in the underfloor after the end of the tenancy. Heating:
Elliott Carl Newby 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). Elliott Carl Newby considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says that there was no heat pump and only an ineffective old wood burner that had no firebricks or heat shields and caused large amounts of smoke to billow around the house if used. The tenant said the wood burner was unusable. The tenant used normal heaters but the cost of these were expensive to run in a house of this condition.
The landlord says the problem with the wood burner was user error and not a fault. The landlord checked the wood burner after the end of the tenancy and said that it works well. Ventilation:
Elliott Carl Newby 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). Elliott Carl Newby considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
There is no dispute that there were no extractor fans in the bathrooms or kitchen. The tenant says that there were multiple broken window latches and glass, missing sealant around the bay window, a leaking roof, all of which contributed to rain and cold air and heavy mould in the house. Draught stopping:
Elliott Carl Newby 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). Elliott Carl Newby considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says that the broken windows and latches created draughts in addition to the broken back door hinge that would allow the door to swing open in the wind and it never shut properly.
The landlord says that he was unaware of the problem with the door and that he gave new latches to the tenant to put on the windows. Moisture Ingress:
Elliott Carl Newby 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). Elliott Carl Newby considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes, and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says that the gutters were blocked and assumed it was because they had not been cleaned out. There was no water egress as when it rained the water would flow off the house and surrounding area and flood the garage.
The landlord felt it was the tenant’s job to unblock gutters and that the flooding was only in extreme weather events such as Cyclone Gabriel.
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).
The landlord accepts that the house was not compliant with Healthy Homes Standards as set out in the RTA during this tenancy. However, he says that he was unaware of his obligations under the RTA at the time.
Once he was aware he has immediately remedied all these areas where the property was non complaint.
The landlord also believes that the tenant did not advise him of problems with the house and if he had, he could have attended to them immediately.
I accept that the landlord was probably largely unaware of the issues with the property and certainly his obligations under the RTA.
Regardless, ignorance of the law is not a defence. The landlord has an absolute obligation to be aware of his responsibilities as a landlord.
The landlord has other properties in addition to this house, with at least one other rented out to tenants.
The landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards. 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 says he has not intentional committed an unlawful act and I accept that he did not consciencely fail to comply with his obligations. But it is his duty to know about the relevant law that pertains to his property and to ensure that it is maintained.
The effect on the tenant living in this house is that the family suffered from respiratory illnesses and gastrointestinal illness from drinking the unfiltered water. The tenant’s wife complained of always being cold in the house.
The breach for the tenants has been significant in that they did not have a warm and dry home to live in.
There is a strong interest for tenants and the public generally that landlords comply with Healthy Homes Standards and maintain the property as needed.
It would be just to make an order. The amount:
The question then becomes the amount of exemplary damages to order.
There are several breaches of the obligations under section 45 RTA (the HHS and maintenance), but that is still a breach of one section, which is s45 RTA. I can only make an order to the maximum of $7200.00 for a breach under s45(1A), but I can take into account that there are several breaches within that section.
Having done so, I consider an order of 50% of the maximum would be reasonable. I order exemplary damages of $3600.00. Compensation:
The tenant also seeks compensation by way of a rent refund for the landlord’s breach of HHS.
In addition to the issues raised above by the tenant, he also refers to broken cracked and leaking toilets, broken flush buttons on the toilets, dripping bathroom tap, rotten, torn carpets, water leaks, rotten front steps, broken oven, and undrinkable water from the water tank.
I consider it is fair to order compensation. The tenants were expected to pay rent for premises which did not meet the required standard. I note that exemplary damages are not compensatory, so it is reasonable to also order a sum of money to compensate the tenant. I acknowledge that the rent was reduced as part of an employment package. Nevertheless, the tenant has had to pay rent over a 14-month period and live in a house that was non-compliant with the HHS.
It is difficult to determine with precision what would be fair compensation. However, when considering the length of time the tenant and his family lived in the property, without extractor fans, adequate insulation, proper draught stopping and maintenance, I consider a 10% reduction over the term of the tenancy appropriate.
I consider it reasonable to provide compensation in the amount of $1960.00.
Because the tenant has been successful in his application, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4729660 — Exemplary damages at 179 Ponsford Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4729660 — Exemplary damages at 179 Ponsford Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684

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