What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4733091?

The tribunal order states: Vicki Putt and Duane Putt must pay Sean Scully $6,695.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4733091?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,675.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4733091?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4733091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10285751-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4733091?

The tribunal order states: Vicki Putt and Duane Putt must pay Sean Scully $6,695.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4733091?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,675.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4733091?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4733091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10285751-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

115 Rangitane Road, Kerikeri, RD 1, Kerikeri 0294 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4733091 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4733091 — net $6,695.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Damages as detailed below	$6,675.00	Damages as detailed below
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,695.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,695.44

Order

Vicki Putt and Duane Putt must pay Sean Scully $6,695.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenanted premises is a shed / barn on Mr & Mrs Putt’s property on Rangitane Road.
Alterations were carried out on the shed, prior to Mr & Mrs Putt’s ownership, to add amenities including a shower, toilet, a basic kitchen with a stove, partitioned ‘rooms’, and a wood burner in the largest room.
Mr & Mrs Putt have owned the property for about five years. They rented the shed out once before Mr Scully’s tenancy. That person only used the shed occasionally.
Mr Scully’s occupancy of the shed began after he put a post on Facebook.
Mrs Putt says that Mr Scully’s post stated that he was looking for a workshop. Mr Scully denied this, and said that he was looking for a place to live. Neither party could provide a copy of the Facebook post to the Tribunal.
Mr Scully viewed the property. He liked what he saw, and he agreed to rent it. The agreed rent was $300.00 per week and he also paid $50.00 per week towards power.
Mr Scully moved in on 20 January 2022.
He had some challenges with living in the property, particularly with the shower. The califont for the shower was inadequate and unsuitable, and it provided very limited amounts of hot water. Mr Scully often shared the shed with rodents and birds. It was cold and draughty and prone to mould.
Whenever he raised any maintenance issues, he got an impatient and sometimes hostile response from Mr Putt.
Mr Scully’s mental health deteriorated.
The landlord issued a 90-day notice to terminate Mr Scully’s tenancy on the grounds that the property was going to be put on the market for sale.
Mr Scully ultimately gave notice himself, and the tenancy ended on 6 October 2023.
Mr Scully’s application raises issues relating to failure to provide a written tenancy agreement, failure to lodge the bond, failure to meet the healthy homes standards, breach of quiet enjoyment, failure to maintain the premises, failure to meet legal building standards, and unlawful premises.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 11 April 2024. Mr Scully and Mrs Putt attended the hearing. Jurisdiction
Mrs Putt argued that this is a commercial property, and the arrangement with Mr Scully was a commercial lease, and that therefore the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine Mr Scully’s claim.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes about tenancies that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to 1 .
The RTA applies to all tenancies of residential premises 2 .
The RTA defines “residential premises” as: 1 Section 77(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 4 RTA, except where specifically excluded in section 5 RTA Any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be lawful 3
The RTA does not apply to leases of commercial premises 4 .
In this instance: a. The property has residential amenities that make it capable of being lived in. b. Mr Scully did in fact live in it for a period of approximately 21 months.
Applying the definition above, I am satisfied that the premises were used for occupation by Mr Scully, and that therefore they are residential premises.
The RTA applied to this tenancy.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine Mr Scully’s application. Findings
The RTA imposes a range of obligations on landlords in terms of the condition of the property and actions that they must (and must not) take.
If a landlord fails to meet those obligations, the Tenancy Tribunal can provide a range of remedies to tenants, including ‘damages’ (a monetary award against the landlord in favour of the tenant).
The RTA does not treat humble premises any differently than grand ones. It also does not treat inexperienced, or even accidental, landlords any differently than experienced professional landlords. The same duties and obligations apply.
Mr Scully has proven multiple breaches of the RTA.
The landlords did not provide him with a written tenancy agreement 5 .
The premises are woefully short of the healthy homes standards 6 .
The premises were not provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair 7 .
There are aspects of the plumbing, wiring, and septic system that do not appear to comply with the legal requirements of the Building Act 2004 8 . 3 Section 2 RTA 4 Section 5(1)(a) RTA 5 Sections 13 & 13A RTA 6 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 7 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 8 Section 45(1)(c) RTA
Each of these breaches are unlawful acts. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages if an unlawful act is committed intentionally. The maximum award of exemplary damages for failing to provide a written tenancy agreement is $750.00. It is also an additional unlawful act to not provide an insulation statement, a healthy homes statement, and an insurance statement. Each of these can be subject to an award of exemplary damages of up to $750.00. The maximum exemplary damages for failure to meet the healthy homes standards is $7,200. The same maximum applies to failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and failure to comply with the Building Act 2004.
Mr Scully questioned whether the premises are lawful. The premises would be unlawful if building consent was not obtained for the conversion from a shed to a habitable dwelling, or if the number of dwellings on the land exceeds the maximum permitted under the District Plan. I understand why Mr Scully has suspicions in that regard, but I cannot make a finding that the premises are unlawful without evidence to support that finding, and Mr Scully did not produce any such evidence.
If premises are unlawful, the Tenancy Tribunal can make a range of orders. In particular, it can award the tenant a refund of all of the rent paid during the tenancy “less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct” 9 .
This allows the Tribunal to make a monetary award to the tenant that: a. Acknowledges the fact that the premises should not have been made available to rent; but b. Takes into account the fact that the tenant received some benefit from the accommodation; and c. Allows the Tribunal to recognise that there is a wide variety in the quality of “unlawful premises”, and context is critical.
As stated above, there is not enough evidence to support a finding that these premises are unlawful.
However in assessing an appropriate award of damages in this instance, I think that the approach detailed above is far more suitable than aggregating separate awards of exemplary damages for failure to provide a tenancy agreement, failure to maintain the premises, failure to meet the healthy homes standards (etc).
The premises are not to an acceptable standard and they should never have been rented out. However, Mr Scully knew (broadly speaking) what he was 9 Section 78A(4)(a) RTA getting, and he was happy to take it on. He freely acknowledges that he enjoyed many aspects of the property, and he received benefit from the accommodation. He had no difficulties with Mrs Putt, and although he found Mr Putt very difficult at times, he recognised that Mr Putt was dealing with serious health problems.
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine each dispute “according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case” 10 .
My finding is that an appropriate outcome in this instance is that the Mr & Mrs Putt pays Mr Scully damages totalling $6,675.00. This represents one quarter of the rent (excluding power) for the 89 weeks that the tenancy lasted.
Mr Scully has been successful in this application and I must also award Mr Scully the filing fee of $20.44 11 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4733091 — net $6,695.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Damages as detailed below	$6,675.00	Damages as detailed below
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,695.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,695.44

Order

Vicki Putt and Duane Putt must pay Sean Scully $6,695.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenanted premises is a shed / barn on Mr & Mrs Putt’s property on Rangitane Road.
Alterations were carried out on the shed, prior to Mr & Mrs Putt’s ownership, to add amenities including a shower, toilet, a basic kitchen with a stove, partitioned ‘rooms’, and a wood burner in the largest room.
Mr & Mrs Putt have owned the property for about five years. They rented the shed out once before Mr Scully’s tenancy. That person only used the shed occasionally.
Mr Scully’s occupancy of the shed began after he put a post on Facebook.
Mrs Putt says that Mr Scully’s post stated that he was looking for a workshop. Mr Scully denied this, and said that he was looking for a place to live. Neither party could provide a copy of the Facebook post to the Tribunal.
Mr Scully viewed the property. He liked what he saw, and he agreed to rent it. The agreed rent was $300.00 per week and he also paid $50.00 per week towards power.
Mr Scully moved in on 20 January 2022.
He had some challenges with living in the property, particularly with the shower. The califont for the shower was inadequate and unsuitable, and it provided very limited amounts of hot water. Mr Scully often shared the shed with rodents and birds. It was cold and draughty and prone to mould.
Whenever he raised any maintenance issues, he got an impatient and sometimes hostile response from Mr Putt.
Mr Scully’s mental health deteriorated.
The landlord issued a 90-day notice to terminate Mr Scully’s tenancy on the grounds that the property was going to be put on the market for sale.
Mr Scully ultimately gave notice himself, and the tenancy ended on 6 October 2023.
Mr Scully’s application raises issues relating to failure to provide a written tenancy agreement, failure to lodge the bond, failure to meet the healthy homes standards, breach of quiet enjoyment, failure to maintain the premises, failure to meet legal building standards, and unlawful premises.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 11 April 2024. Mr Scully and Mrs Putt attended the hearing. Jurisdiction
Mrs Putt argued that this is a commercial property, and the arrangement with Mr Scully was a commercial lease, and that therefore the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine Mr Scully’s claim.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes about tenancies that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to 1 .
The RTA applies to all tenancies of residential premises 2 .
The RTA defines “residential premises” as: 1 Section 77(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 4 RTA, except where specifically excluded in section 5 RTA Any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be lawful 3
The RTA does not apply to leases of commercial premises 4 .
In this instance: a. The property has residential amenities that make it capable of being lived in. b. Mr Scully did in fact live in it for a period of approximately 21 months.
Applying the definition above, I am satisfied that the premises were used for occupation by Mr Scully, and that therefore they are residential premises.
The RTA applied to this tenancy.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine Mr Scully’s application. Findings
The RTA imposes a range of obligations on landlords in terms of the condition of the property and actions that they must (and must not) take.
If a landlord fails to meet those obligations, the Tenancy Tribunal can provide a range of remedies to tenants, including ‘damages’ (a monetary award against the landlord in favour of the tenant).
The RTA does not treat humble premises any differently than grand ones. It also does not treat inexperienced, or even accidental, landlords any differently than experienced professional landlords. The same duties and obligations apply.
Mr Scully has proven multiple breaches of the RTA.
The landlords did not provide him with a written tenancy agreement 5 .
The premises are woefully short of the healthy homes standards 6 .
The premises were not provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair 7 .
There are aspects of the plumbing, wiring, and septic system that do not appear to comply with the legal requirements of the Building Act 2004 8 . 3 Section 2 RTA 4 Section 5(1)(a) RTA 5 Sections 13 & 13A RTA 6 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 7 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 8 Section 45(1)(c) RTA
Each of these breaches are unlawful acts. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages if an unlawful act is committed intentionally. The maximum award of exemplary damages for failing to provide a written tenancy agreement is $750.00. It is also an additional unlawful act to not provide an insulation statement, a healthy homes statement, and an insurance statement. Each of these can be subject to an award of exemplary damages of up to $750.00. The maximum exemplary damages for failure to meet the healthy homes standards is $7,200. The same maximum applies to failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and failure to comply with the Building Act 2004.
Mr Scully questioned whether the premises are lawful. The premises would be unlawful if building consent was not obtained for the conversion from a shed to a habitable dwelling, or if the number of dwellings on the land exceeds the maximum permitted under the District Plan. I understand why Mr Scully has suspicions in that regard, but I cannot make a finding that the premises are unlawful without evidence to support that finding, and Mr Scully did not produce any such evidence.
If premises are unlawful, the Tenancy Tribunal can make a range of orders. In particular, it can award the tenant a refund of all of the rent paid during the tenancy “less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct” 9 .
This allows the Tribunal to make a monetary award to the tenant that: a. Acknowledges the fact that the premises should not have been made available to rent; but b. Takes into account the fact that the tenant received some benefit from the accommodation; and c. Allows the Tribunal to recognise that there is a wide variety in the quality of “unlawful premises”, and context is critical.
As stated above, there is not enough evidence to support a finding that these premises are unlawful.
However in assessing an appropriate award of damages in this instance, I think that the approach detailed above is far more suitable than aggregating separate awards of exemplary damages for failure to provide a tenancy agreement, failure to maintain the premises, failure to meet the healthy homes standards (etc).
The premises are not to an acceptable standard and they should never have been rented out. However, Mr Scully knew (broadly speaking) what he was 9 Section 78A(4)(a) RTA getting, and he was happy to take it on. He freely acknowledges that he enjoyed many aspects of the property, and he received benefit from the accommodation. He had no difficulties with Mrs Putt, and although he found Mr Putt very difficult at times, he recognised that Mr Putt was dealing with serious health problems.
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine each dispute “according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case” 10 .
My finding is that an appropriate outcome in this instance is that the Mr & Mrs Putt pays Mr Scully damages totalling $6,675.00. This represents one quarter of the rent (excluding power) for the 89 weeks that the tenancy lasted.
Mr Scully has been successful in this application and I must also award Mr Scully the filing fee of $20.44 11 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4733091 — Property damage at 115 Rangitane Road, Kerikeri, RD 1, Kerikeri 0294

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4733091 — Property damage at 115 Rangitane Road, Kerikeri, RD 1, Kerikeri 0294

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