What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4797909?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Yu-ling Bartlett- wright at 12A Kakariki Avenue, Mount Eden,

How much money was awarded in case 4797909?

Compensation: $330.46 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (failure to provide HH…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (failure to provide in…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Power (To 30/01/2024: $584.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $563.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797909?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10075348-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4797909?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Yu-ling Bartlett- wright at 12A Kakariki Avenue, Mount Eden,

How much money was awarded in case 4797909?

Compensation: $330.46 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (failure to provide HH…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (failure to provide in…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Power (To 30/01/2024: $584.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $563.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797909?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10075348-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12A Kakariki Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797909 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797909 — net $8,587.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 13/03/2024	$12,150.00		2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates arrears, and power arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the f…
Water rates (to 28/02/2024	$563.29		Water rates (to 28/02/2024
Power (to 30/01/2024	$584.43		Power (to 30/01/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		64. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a.
Exemplary damages: (Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	(Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: (breach of quiet enjoyment		$600.00	(breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: (failure to provide HHS info in TA		$100.00	(failure to provide HHS info in TA
Compensation: (failure to provide insurance info in the		$100.00	(failure to provide insurance info in the
Compensation (Wastewater charge		$330.46	Compensation (Wastewater charge
Compensation (failure to maintain		$1,000.00	Compensation (failure to maintain
Total award	$13,318.16	$2,630.46
Net award	$8,587.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,587.77

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797909 — net $8,587.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 13/03/2024	$12,150.00		2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates arrears, and power arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the f…
Water rates (to 28/02/2024	$563.29		Water rates (to 28/02/2024
Power (to 30/01/2024	$584.43		Power (to 30/01/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		64. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a.
Exemplary damages: (Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	(Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: (breach of quiet enjoyment		$600.00	(breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: (failure to provide HHS info in TA		$100.00	(failure to provide HHS info in TA
Compensation: (failure to provide insurance info in the		$100.00	(failure to provide insurance info in the
Compensation (Wastewater charge		$330.46	Compensation (Wastewater charge
Compensation (failure to maintain		$1,000.00	Compensation (failure to maintain
Total award	$13,318.16	$2,630.46
Net award	$8,587.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,587.77

Order

The tenancy of Yu-ling Bartlett- wright at 12A Kakariki Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Bin (Ellen) Chen, at 11:59pm on Wednesday 13 March 2024.
Yu-ling Bartlett- wright must pay Bin (Ellen) Chen $8,587.77 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (6520484-001) to Bin (Ellen) Chen immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates arrears, and power arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant made a cross application during the hearing for failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre in the statutory time frame, failure to provide healthy homes and insurance information in the tenancy agreement, breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property and unlawfully passing on fixed waste water charges to the tenant. The landlord agreed to me hearing those claims without requiring the tenant to lodge a separate cross application with the Tribunal. Termination of the tenancy and possession
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided water and power arrears records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Failure to maintain
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 . 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 may 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].
Breaching this s45(1)(b) of the RTA 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
Yu-ling Bartlett- Wright claims that the landlord has refused to fix a broken windowpane in the front bedroom/office that has been broken since May/June 2023. She claims it is still broken, covered by a plastic sheet and has resulted in the house being cold and damp. She says her son contracted pneumonia because of living in these cold damp conditions over winter.
The landlord says the tenant told her that she would arrange to have the glass pane fixed, as she had felt guilty about previous rent arrears. The tenant was not in rent arrears at that time.
The tenant said she only offered to get a second quote and not to pay to have the window fixed. When she got the quote, the contractor told her the repair was the responsibility of the landlord.
The tenant says the landlord had also got a quote for the window glass, but never fixed it. She is unsure why the landlord has not fixed it. The tenant says she was nervous to keep asking the landlord to fix the window, as the landlord had been very curt with the tenant when she had been in rent arrears in April and May 2023.
The landlord says she relied on the tenant’s word that she would have it fixed and the tenant did not raise the issue with her again after it had first happened. Had the tenant raised the issue again with the landlord she would have had it fixed.
The landlord claims the relationship with the tenant has always been friendly and she has always spoken to the tenant politely and professionally. The tenant agrees that most of their interactions have been friendly but says the landlord gets stressed when the tenant is behind on her rent, water or power bills and becomes overly insistent to the point of being aggressive and intimidating and rude. The landlord denies this.
The tenant has a responsibility to raise any repair and maintenance issues with the landlord. She did so back in May/June of 2023. The tenant says she did not follow up with the landlord, after the initial raising of the need for this repair, as she was too frightened to do so as she had recently been in rent arrears again and had been subject to the landlord’s stress fuelled communications. She left it as it was obvious to the landlord that the window had not been repaired as the landlord lives next door. Further notice from the tenant was not required as she had informed the landlord of the broken window and the landlord knew of the need to repair as she gave evidence, she had received a quote for the repair and accepted the need for repair was apparent to her from observation.
The landlord says she failed to repair the window because she was under the reasonable belief the tenant had offered to have it repaired herself.
The tenant gave evidence that the window is still broken and covered by plastic and has been like this for a period of 10 months. She also confirmed during the hearing that the landlord has not once enquired why the window has not been repaired, when it was obviously not repaired by the tenant, and would have been letting cold damp air and potentially water into the house over the winter months of June to September. The tenant also claims the landlord knew it was not the tenant’s responsibility to arrange and pay for the window repair and that she had never offered to do so. She had only agreed to get a second quote for comparison.
I find that the landlord has failed to repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. I do not find that the landlord did so intentionally or with malice. Therefore, I do not award any exemplary damages.
The tenant has suffered loss of amenity of the room with the broken window for a period of 10 months and her son has suffered ill health as a direct result of living in a colder and more damp home than he would have been but for the broken windowpane. Therefore, I award the tenant $1,000.00 in rent reduction, being $25 per week for 40 weeks, for the stress and inconvenience and loss of amenity she and her family suffered. In awarding this sum, I have considered the contributory factor of the tenant not raising the issue with the landlord during that 10-month period and communicating the adverse impact on the tenant and her family of the window not being repaired. Overpayment of wastewater fixed charge
Yu-ling Bartlett- Wright claims that the landlord has passed on the fixed wastewater charge to her when payment of this fixed charge is the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord was not aware that these charges were her responsibility until the hearing today. She has not had tenants before. She confirmed that she understood that ignorance of the law is no excuse and agreed that the tenant be reimbursed for the overpayment of the fixed water charges.
The landlord also accepted responsibility for payment of the fixed wastewater charges based on an average of $21.32 per month for 15.5 months. The average amount came from the September 2023 water rates bill. The total reimbursement amount awarded to the tenant is $330.46. Healthy homes standards information
Yu-ling Bartlett- wright claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement provided to and signed by the tenant does not include any of the required healthy homes standards information. As such, the tenant had no idea when she took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant and/or whether any exemptions apply to the premises.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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 parties both gave evidence that the tenants did not raise any issues or concerns about the landlord’s failure to provide the required healthy homes statements in the tenancy agreement, until these proceedings were filed in the Tribunal.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, but that she did so as she was not fully aware of her legislative obligation to do so. Ignore of the law is no excuse when it comes to compliance with the RTA, but I cannot conclude that the breach was intentional.
The breach was a technical breach that the evidence shows: a. Had a negligible if any effect on the tenant; b. There were no claims made by the tenant that suggested the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards or that tenant would not have taken up the tenancy had she had the healthy homes information; c. It is not in the public interest for the Tribunal’s time to be taken up on technical breaches that have no effect;
As such, while a minor technical breach has occurred, I do not find it just to award the tenant exemplary damages for the breach.
Landlords are however required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I acknowledge this by awarding a compensatory sum of $100.00 as it is in the public interest for the Tribunal to dissuade landlords from failing to educate themselves on their responsibilities to their tenants under the RTA. Insurance information in the tenancy agreement
Yu-ling Bartlett- wright claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises as part of the tenancy agreement.
Section 13A(2) of the RTA states “the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: a. If the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and b. If the premises are insured, a statement: i. setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and ii. informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or66J(5))”.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required insurance information, prescribed by sections 13A(2) and 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, but that she did so as she was not fully aware of her legislative obligation to do so. Ignore of the law is no excuse when it comes to compliance with the RTA, but I cannot conclude that the breach was intentional.
The breach was a technical breach that the evidence shows: a. Had a negligible if any effect on the tenant, as the property is insured, had the tenant requested the insurance information it would have been provided; b. There were no claims made by the tenant that suggested the premises were not insured or that any issues occurred where the landlord had to rely on her insurance; c. It is not in the public interest for the Tribunal’s time to be taken up on technical breaches that have no effect.
As such, while the evidence proves a minor technical breach has occurred, I do not find it just to award the tenant exemplary damages for the breach.
Landlords are however required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I acknowledge this by awarding a compensatory sum of $100.00 as it is in the public interest for the Tribunal to dissuade landlords from failing to educate themselves on their responsibilities to their tenants under the RTA. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Yu-ling Bartlett- Wright claims the landlord has harassed her and her family and breached their quiet enjoyment of the property.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant and her son gave evidence the landlord lived next door to them. On 23 and 24 January 2024, they say the landlord was extremely stressed about the amount of rent, water and power arrears the tenant owed and had been calling and texting the tenant or getting their son to call and text the tenant and came to the house late at night to try and pressure the tenant for payment of these arrears.
The tenant and her son say that on 23 January 2024, the landlord came to the front door wanting to speak with the tenant. When she found the tenant was not at home, she engaged in some threatening communication informing them that she wanted the arrears paid as she had a mortgage to pay and that their power and water would be cut off soon as she was going to tell the utility companies to take the power and water out of her name and the tenants would have to apply to have these utilities put on themselves.
The evidence given by the landlord suggested that the landlord was stressed as the tenant had not been communicating with her and she had gone to the house at around 8:47pm at night to try to talk to the tenant as she thought she would be home by that time. When she found the tenant was not at home she engaged in a conversation with the tenant’s daughter, who usually transferred the rent to the landlord’s account. The tenant’s daughter, her partner and the tenant’s son were all witness to this exchange.
The tenant’s son says the landlord was quite heated during her communication with them. The landlord denies this and says she was professional, polite, and non-threatening. She says she simply wanted to convey the urgency in the tenant paying the rent, power and water arrears she owed and wanted the tenants to know that because of the significant arrears the landlord was going to get the utilities taken out of her name as she could no longer carry the tenant’s debts.
The tenant gave further evidence that on 24 January 2024, the landlord went to the tenant’s house at 1:30am to speak to the tenant.
The landlord gave evidence that she couldn’t sleep because of the stress from the significant debt the tenant had placed on her from non-payment of rent, power and water. The landlord confirmed had seen the tenant coming home and wanted to sort out the arrears and what was going to happen to the utilities when the landlord took the utility accounts out of her name.
I find they have committed an unlawful act as going to the tenant’s house late at night and in the early hours of the morning is a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and is a form of harassment.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $3,000.00 where it is satisfied that 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 am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew that it was reasonably foreseeable that banging on the tenant’s door late at night or in the early hours of the morning to chase up overdue rent, water and power would be considered a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property. It was not an appropriate time or way to debt collect; b. The tenant suffered the stress of having her peace and quiet and quiet enjoyment of the property breached as she could not avoid the landlord, who approached her in the early hours of the morning to discuss her debts. The tenant also suffered the humiliation of having her children questioned by the landlord, late at night, when their mother was not at home. The children had reported to the tenant that they had been intimidated and felt the issues were between their mother as the tenant and the landlord. Payment of the rent, power and water was not their responsibility, and they were embarrassed to have to relay to their mother what had occurred; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy. Failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre
Yu-ling Bartlett- wright claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond for 15 months after receiving it. 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.
Landlord’s are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after her receipt of it. The landlord had got the tenancy agreement from the Tenancy Services website and that website contains bond forms and other such resources that she could have used to inform her of what to do with the bond. The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for over 15 months; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 15 months and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties interests. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Bin (Ellen) Chen has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797909 — Rent arrears at 12A Kakariki Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797909 — Rent arrears at 12A Kakariki Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

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