What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4816993?

The tribunal order states: The suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details is lifted. In all other

How much money was awarded in case 4816993?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $380.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816993?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10666071-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4816993?

The tribunal order states: The suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details is lifted. In all other

How much money was awarded in case 4816993?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $380.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816993?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10666071-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 16 Wairiki Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4816993 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4816993 — net $2,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failure to repair washing machine	$380.00	Compensation for failure to repair washing machine
Exemplary damages for Retaliatory Notice	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages for Retaliatory Notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,400.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,400.44

Order

The suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details is lifted. In all other respects the order dated 17 April 2024 remains the same, as recorded below.
The Tribunal declares that the notices to increase rent issued to the tenant are invalid and of no effect.
The Tribunal declares that the notice to terminate the tenancy issued by the landlord dated 18 February 2024 is invalid and of no effect.
Proprietor Trustee Company Limited, Kalem Traill must pay Rochelle Gay Peck $2,400.44 immediately.

Reasons

On 17 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order following a hearing. The tenant was successful in the application and her name was suppressed at her request.
Order 1 of the order dated 17 April 2024 stated the following “An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.”
The tenant has now forwarded the Tribunal a written request to lift the suppression of her name. The order is amended in this detail only.
In all other respects the order dated 17 April 2024 remains the same and the reasons remain as recorded in the paragraphs that follow.
The applicant tenant attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the landlord.
This matter was adjourned on 11 March 2023 at the request of Kalem Traill. The Adjudicator ordered that: “3. The landlord may not act on the notice terminating the tenancy until the application is heard and determined by the Tribunal.
The landlord’s notice of a rent increase is stayed, and is of no effect, until the next hearing.”
The tenant rented a 2-bedroom unit in a converted bungalow commencing 13 July 2019 and lives there with her children. She has dealt with Kalem Traill since the beginning of the tenancy and stated that initially they had a good relationship until communication regarding a rent increase.
The tenant has applied for an order reducing the rent increase to be in line with market rent, compensation for failure to maintain a washing machine, and exemplary damages for retaliatory notice.
The tenant advised today that since the last adjournment she has given 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy and the tenancy will be ending on 27 April 2024. Rent increase
The weekly rent in the tenancy agreement is recorded as $495.00 per week.
The landlord initially sought to increase the rent by text on 7 July 2023.
Again, on 14 January 2024 the landlord sent a rent increase email.
Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the conditions for a rent increase by the landlord. The written notice must specify the date on which the increased rent shall become payable. Neither of the rent increase notices specify the date on which the increase becomes payable. Therefore, the notices are invalid and of no effect.
The tenant advised that as the tenancy is ending, she does not wish to pursue the market rent application.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the washing machine?

Rochelle Gay Peck claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord has responsibilities including that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The premises were provided with a washing machine.
On 19 July 2019 the tenant texted the contact number provided for the landlord to advise that the washing machine was not working. Kalem Traill responded asking the tenant to arrange a repair. She stated that she did not do this as she considered it to be the landlord’s responsibility and texted again on 27 August 2019 again requesting a repair. The landlord arranged for a contractor to repair the machine.
On 12 February 2020 the tenant texted the landlord to advise that the washing machine was not working again and the clothes were coming out dirtier than going in. The landlord did not arrange a contractor.
The tenant stated that she texted again on 18 June 2020, 13 July 2020 advising that things were getting worse and still no repair was arranged.
The tenant stated that as the landlord took no action she was gifted a washing machine by a friend.
On 7 November 2020 the tenant texted the landlord stating that she had a new machine coming and asked what to do with the old one. The landlord replied to scrap it.
The tenant advised that the washing machine given to her also broke down and she purchased a replacement in August 2023 which she now intends to take with her when she moves.
The tenant provided copies of the text messages and a copy of the payment from MSD for the replacement washing machine in support of her claim.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord failure to maintain the washing machine and the ongoing inconvenience to her.
Having considered the evidence I find that although the landlord initially repaired the washing machine in August 2019 there was a delay of at least 38 weeks from when the tenant informed the landlord on 12 February 2020 that the machine was not working properly until eventually the tenant resolved the problem in November 2020. This affected the tenant’s use of the premises due to ongoing laundry issues. The length of this delay is unreasonable and only ended by the tenant resolving the maintenance issue.
The landlord has breached the responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I order the landlord to pay compensation in the amount of $10 per week for the 38 weeks totalling $380.00.

Is the Notice to Terminate Retaliatory?

On 18 February 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant at 7:23am giving the tenant a 90-day notice ending the tenancy. The notice does not specify an end date. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant stated that at 1:08am on 18 February 2024 she emailed the landlord seeking reimbursement for some maintenance she had arranged, listing some maintenance issues that needed addressing (electrical, shower door rubbers, leaks) and raising concerns about breach of quiet enjoyment due to disturbance from the upstairs tenants.
The notice to terminate the tenancy was sent just over 6 hours later on the same email thread as a response to the tenant’s email.
On 27 March 2024 the landlord emailed the tenant “1)why are you taking me to tenancy tribunal? 2)I don’t actually want you to move out. I just don’t want my rental to get run down with out fixing any problems you complained about. If I have to pull any walls apart then fix anything then refix gib linings and paint. I haven’t bothered harassing you because you never complained before.”
The tenant provided copies of the email correspondence.
Having considered the evidence I find on the balance of probabilities that the notice to terminate issued by the landlord, shortly after the tenant’s email seeking maintenance and quiet enjoyment of the premises, was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising her rights. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $6500.00 where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The effect of the notice on the tenant was to cause stress and uncertainty about her housing situation. The tenant stated that she had lived in the premises for almost five years with her children and enjoyed living there.
The tenant stated that by the time she received the email from the landlord dated 27 March saying he did not want her to move out it was 39 days after the original notice and she had already taken significant steps towards leaving the property.
The tenant stated that the termination notice has caused her significant inconvenience, stress, anxiety, doctor’s visit, WINZ consultations and relocation costs.
She has now found alternative accommodation out of Auckland at considerable family disruption and has given notice to end the tenancy. But this was motivated by the pressure to move earlier than she expected.
There is a public interest in landlords complying with the RTA. The grounds for termination of tenancies are in place to ensure that there is certainty for landlords and tenants and rights are protected. Tenants have a right to quiet enjoyment of their homes and this is breached when landlords do not honour their responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having considered the effect of the unlawful act and the interests of the other party and the public interest and that there is no evidence of a previous breach of this nature by the landlord; I consider an award of exemplary damages of $2000.00 to be appropriate. Suppression/Filing fee
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and suppress the tenant details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4816993 — net $2,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failure to repair washing machine	$380.00	Compensation for failure to repair washing machine
Exemplary damages for Retaliatory Notice	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages for Retaliatory Notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,400.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,400.44

Order

The suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details is lifted. In all other respects the order dated 17 April 2024 remains the same, as recorded below.
The Tribunal declares that the notices to increase rent issued to the tenant are invalid and of no effect.
The Tribunal declares that the notice to terminate the tenancy issued by the landlord dated 18 February 2024 is invalid and of no effect.
Proprietor Trustee Company Limited, Kalem Traill must pay Rochelle Gay Peck $2,400.44 immediately.

Reasons

On 17 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order following a hearing. The tenant was successful in the application and her name was suppressed at her request.
Order 1 of the order dated 17 April 2024 stated the following “An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.”
The tenant has now forwarded the Tribunal a written request to lift the suppression of her name. The order is amended in this detail only.
In all other respects the order dated 17 April 2024 remains the same and the reasons remain as recorded in the paragraphs that follow.
The applicant tenant attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the landlord.
This matter was adjourned on 11 March 2023 at the request of Kalem Traill. The Adjudicator ordered that: “3. The landlord may not act on the notice terminating the tenancy until the application is heard and determined by the Tribunal.
The landlord’s notice of a rent increase is stayed, and is of no effect, until the next hearing.”
The tenant rented a 2-bedroom unit in a converted bungalow commencing 13 July 2019 and lives there with her children. She has dealt with Kalem Traill since the beginning of the tenancy and stated that initially they had a good relationship until communication regarding a rent increase.
The tenant has applied for an order reducing the rent increase to be in line with market rent, compensation for failure to maintain a washing machine, and exemplary damages for retaliatory notice.
The tenant advised today that since the last adjournment she has given 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy and the tenancy will be ending on 27 April 2024. Rent increase
The weekly rent in the tenancy agreement is recorded as $495.00 per week.
The landlord initially sought to increase the rent by text on 7 July 2023.
Again, on 14 January 2024 the landlord sent a rent increase email.
Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the conditions for a rent increase by the landlord. The written notice must specify the date on which the increased rent shall become payable. Neither of the rent increase notices specify the date on which the increase becomes payable. Therefore, the notices are invalid and of no effect.
The tenant advised that as the tenancy is ending, she does not wish to pursue the market rent application.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the washing machine?

Rochelle Gay Peck claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord has responsibilities including that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The premises were provided with a washing machine.
On 19 July 2019 the tenant texted the contact number provided for the landlord to advise that the washing machine was not working. Kalem Traill responded asking the tenant to arrange a repair. She stated that she did not do this as she considered it to be the landlord’s responsibility and texted again on 27 August 2019 again requesting a repair. The landlord arranged for a contractor to repair the machine.
On 12 February 2020 the tenant texted the landlord to advise that the washing machine was not working again and the clothes were coming out dirtier than going in. The landlord did not arrange a contractor.
The tenant stated that she texted again on 18 June 2020, 13 July 2020 advising that things were getting worse and still no repair was arranged.
The tenant stated that as the landlord took no action she was gifted a washing machine by a friend.
On 7 November 2020 the tenant texted the landlord stating that she had a new machine coming and asked what to do with the old one. The landlord replied to scrap it.
The tenant advised that the washing machine given to her also broke down and she purchased a replacement in August 2023 which she now intends to take with her when she moves.
The tenant provided copies of the text messages and a copy of the payment from MSD for the replacement washing machine in support of her claim.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord failure to maintain the washing machine and the ongoing inconvenience to her.
Having considered the evidence I find that although the landlord initially repaired the washing machine in August 2019 there was a delay of at least 38 weeks from when the tenant informed the landlord on 12 February 2020 that the machine was not working properly until eventually the tenant resolved the problem in November 2020. This affected the tenant’s use of the premises due to ongoing laundry issues. The length of this delay is unreasonable and only ended by the tenant resolving the maintenance issue.
The landlord has breached the responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I order the landlord to pay compensation in the amount of $10 per week for the 38 weeks totalling $380.00.

Is the Notice to Terminate Retaliatory?

On 18 February 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant at 7:23am giving the tenant a 90-day notice ending the tenancy. The notice does not specify an end date. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant stated that at 1:08am on 18 February 2024 she emailed the landlord seeking reimbursement for some maintenance she had arranged, listing some maintenance issues that needed addressing (electrical, shower door rubbers, leaks) and raising concerns about breach of quiet enjoyment due to disturbance from the upstairs tenants.
The notice to terminate the tenancy was sent just over 6 hours later on the same email thread as a response to the tenant’s email.
On 27 March 2024 the landlord emailed the tenant “1)why are you taking me to tenancy tribunal? 2)I don’t actually want you to move out. I just don’t want my rental to get run down with out fixing any problems you complained about. If I have to pull any walls apart then fix anything then refix gib linings and paint. I haven’t bothered harassing you because you never complained before.”
The tenant provided copies of the email correspondence.
Having considered the evidence I find on the balance of probabilities that the notice to terminate issued by the landlord, shortly after the tenant’s email seeking maintenance and quiet enjoyment of the premises, was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising her rights. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $6500.00 where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The effect of the notice on the tenant was to cause stress and uncertainty about her housing situation. The tenant stated that she had lived in the premises for almost five years with her children and enjoyed living there.
The tenant stated that by the time she received the email from the landlord dated 27 March saying he did not want her to move out it was 39 days after the original notice and she had already taken significant steps towards leaving the property.
The tenant stated that the termination notice has caused her significant inconvenience, stress, anxiety, doctor’s visit, WINZ consultations and relocation costs.
She has now found alternative accommodation out of Auckland at considerable family disruption and has given notice to end the tenancy. But this was motivated by the pressure to move earlier than she expected.
There is a public interest in landlords complying with the RTA. The grounds for termination of tenancies are in place to ensure that there is certainty for landlords and tenants and rights are protected. Tenants have a right to quiet enjoyment of their homes and this is breached when landlords do not honour their responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having considered the effect of the unlawful act and the interests of the other party and the public interest and that there is no evidence of a previous breach of this nature by the landlord; I consider an award of exemplary damages of $2000.00 to be appropriate. Suppression/Filing fee
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and suppress the tenant details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816993 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 16 Wairiki Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816993 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 16 Wairiki Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the washing machine?

Is the Notice to Terminate Retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the washing machine?

Is the Notice to Terminate Retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions