What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4755336?

The tribunal order states: Climber Property Limited must pay Harvinder Singh and Satwinder Kaur

How much money was awarded in case 4755336?

Compensation: Loss Of Garments: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755336?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755336?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10619213-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4755336?

The tribunal order states: Climber Property Limited must pay Harvinder Singh and Satwinder Kaur

How much money was awarded in case 4755336?

Compensation: Loss Of Garments: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755336?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755336?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10619213-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 75 The Drive, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4755336 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755336 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of garments	$1,000.00	loss of garments
Compensation: stress	$500.00	stress
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Both parties attended the hearing, Mr Jeet represented the landlord.

Mr Singh and Mrs Kaur have applied for compensation due to damage caused to their belongings as a result of the owner’s negligent contractor. On 19 February I originally heard that matter and was satisfied that the landlord was liable for the damage. The parties were referred to mediation to discuss the amount payable.

The parties did not come to resolution and therefore I am now tasked with ascertaining the correct amount of compensation payable. The landlord has offered $1,000. The tenants seek between $2,100 and $3,150 on the basis that they paid $3,150 for the wedding clothes that were damaged but wish to be reasonable.

The damage has arisen when contractors have sprayed a mould cleaner on the ceiling of the garage that has fallen onto Mrs Kaur and her daughter’s wedding clothing that were hanging on racks in the garage. The clothing had been custom made in India for a wedding that was due to occur shortly after this event.

This had been an elaborately planned and much looked forward to occasion for the family. Mr Singh, Mrs Kaur and their daughter all had approximately five outfits for the five-day event that had been specially coordinated. Mr Singh’s clothing did not get damaged, but all Mrs Kaur and her daughter’s outfits did.

Because the damage occurred just prior to the wedding, Mrs Kaur had to quickly source local garments of lesser quality and make alterations herself. Mr Singh explained the deep embarrassment that his family felt at not being able to attend this significant event in the way they wished and was expected of them.

In support of his claim, Mr Singh has presented the following: a. Invoices from the supplier of the clothing totalling just over NZD$3,100. He says the items arrived from India in September/October 2022. As the garments were for the wedding, they were unworn. b. A quote from a local Indian dressmaker for $3,641 to re-make the belongings. c. Confirmation of a DHL shipment in September which he says was the shipment of the dresses. d. Confirmation of payments to New Zealand dressmakers on 4 and 12 February. e. Confirmation of relatives arriving on 9 January for the wedding.

The landlord contests the veracity of the supplier invoices because they are consecutively numbered invoices yet dated 12/9/20 and 8/12/21. Mr Singh explains this by saying they were dated when originally commissioned.

The landlord also says that their contractor said he did not think the garments were new because they were hung in the garage. Mr Singh explains this was the only place they could hang them after they had been ironed prior to the wedding.

Mr Singh explains that there were many other items that were damaged, but they are only seeking compensation for the most important of those, the wedding clothes. The law

I held the landlord liable for this loss for the reasons outlined in my decision on 19 February 2024. As I explained in my decision the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party, or to put them back in the place they would have been in but for the breach. 1

Liability is however limited to consequences that are directly attributable to and are foreseeable as the result of the wrongful act or omission. An overarching principle concerning the assessment and methodology of fixing damages is that the award of damages should be reasonable and linked directly to the loss sustained. 2

Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise, and a commonsense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party. Discussion

I accept Mr Singh’s evidence that these garments had been meticulously planned and are now no longer usable. The costs spent on them were therefore lost, as were the costs they were put to in replacing the items at short notice in order that they could still attend the wedding. They therefore have two heads of claim: a. For actual financial loss; pecuniary loss. b. For emotional harm suffered. Pecuniary loss

Firstly, I must establish what was the actual financial loss was.

The evidential onus 3 is initially on Mr Singh to establish his costs, then shifts to the landlord to prove that an award of that amount would overcompensate the tenants.

I cannot accept the evidence of payments made to New Zealand dressmakers in February as they appear to have occurred after the wedding which Mr Singh 1 (1996) 7 TCLR 122 (CA) at 133 2 Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 3 The balance of probabilities told me was in January. There is therefore no evidence as to what cost Mrs Kaur was put to in January to have garments for the wedding.

I can see that the dresses were damaged, and I accept they could not be repaired. The cost of the garments from India is difficult to ascertain, however. I accept the landlord’s submissions that the invoices lack veracity. There is no direct evidence from the dressmaker as to why the invoice were dated a year apart and yet they were numbered consecutively.

I am satisfied that the cost of remaking the garments would likely be over $3,000. However, the wedding has occurred, and the garments are no longer needed so this is not a cost that the tenants incurred.

The loss also needs to be foreseeable. It was clear that should the cleaning spray get on the belongings they may be damaged. What I do not think was foreseeable is the value of the garments or the extent of the damage. The contractor argues that they were being stored in the garage, so they were clearly not particularly valuable to the family.

Having carefully assessed all of the evidence I am satisfied that $1,000 is adequate compensation for the loss of the dresses. Emotional Damages

Mr Singh gave evidence that this was an extremely upsetting event for them. They did not know the work was going to be undertaken, the trades did not speak English and clothes they had specially made could no longer be worn for an impending significant event.

The Tribunal has the authority 4 to award damages for stress and inconvenience. It does so on the basis that the law of contract allows such damages where the purpose or one of the purposes of the contract is the peace and comfort of the party and, in the case of a tenant, that is regarded as one of the purposes of a tenancy agreement.

Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.

As a starting point the Tribunal adopts the position that a tenancy agreement involves a relationship: relationships are rarely smooth, and a tenant must expect some disruption or inconvenience from to time to time. Inevitably there is likely to be disruption when a tenancy approaches its end, even if both parties act entirely lawfully. Commonly there is disagreement and negotiation and often this is because of disagreement over rights and obligations. Some degree of 4 77(2)(n) RTA anxiety and stress has been considered an inevitable corollary to rights based on promises, and a contracting party has traditionally been deemed to take the risk. Accordingly, when considering the level of damages to award, it is well established that where the loss suffered is intangible, awards must be kept modest.

The landlord here has breached their obligations. They did not advise of the maintenance and sent sub-standard trades. Frustration and disappointment to those breaches was an obvious corollary, as was sorrow at the loss of the special garments.

Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 is a previous case which suggests appropriate bands where making awards for emotional harm damages. Those amounts have been increased in the 2022 Tribunal case A v Singh 5 to take into account inflation: “ A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”

Adopting that formular, I consider this a situation of inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, and disappointment. I assess that an award of $500 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Because Mr Singh and Mrs Kaur have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Other

Finally, Mr Jeet post hearing sought that the order be made against the owner Hui Min Yang as their agency relationship has now ended and the contractor was Ms Yang’s. He says the tenants may not get paid if the names aren’t correct.

The application was filed against Climber Property Management as they were the property managers over the relevant time. At that time they were the ‘landlord’ to the tenants in accordance with section 2 of the RTA. They were whom the tenants dealt with in relation to the tenancy. 5 [2022] NZTT Auckland 4315225

Further, I found Climber liable for this event in my February decision. 6 It is not therefore appropriate that the liability change at this time, nor is there any evidence it should.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that Climber is the appropriate respondent to these proceedings. Any issues of liability between Climber and Ms Yang are to be dealt with in another forum.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755336 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of garments	$1,000.00	loss of garments
Compensation: stress	$500.00	stress
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44