What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4848961?

The tribunal order states: Anita Inwood and Greg Inwood must pay Tracey Renee Margaret Hardacre and

How much money was awarded in case 4848961?

Compensation: Failure to appoint an…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent Wrongly Increased: $155.35 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4848961?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4848961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10579499-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4848961?

The tribunal order states: Anita Inwood and Greg Inwood must pay Tracey Renee Margaret Hardacre and

How much money was awarded in case 4848961?

Compensation: Failure to appoint an…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent Wrongly Increased: $155.35 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4848961?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4848961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10579499-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

231 Woodend Beach Road, Woodend, RD 1, Woodend Tenancy Tribunal Case 4848961 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4848961 — net $1,255.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund rent wrongly increased	$155.35	Refund rent wrongly increased
Compensation: Failure to appoint an agent	$100.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Compensation: Water issues including damage to clothing and washing machine	$1,000.00	Water issues including damage to clothing and washing machine
Net award	$1,255.35
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,255.35

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4848961 — net $1,255.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund rent wrongly increased	$155.35	Refund rent wrongly increased
Compensation: Failure to appoint an agent	$100.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Compensation: Water issues including damage to clothing and washing machine	$1,000.00	Water issues including damage to clothing and washing machine
Net award	$1,255.35
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,255.35

Order

Anita Inwood and Greg Inwood must pay Tracey Renee Margaret Hardacre and Jayden Luke Hardacre $1,255.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 July 2024, an earlier hearing having been adjourned so that evidence and submissions could be disclosed and responded to.
Both parties have provided detailed evidence and written submissions as well as videos and sound files. I have considered all the evidence even if I do not specifically refer to it.
The amount of material provided by the landlord, in particular, was significant. Not all of it is directly relevant to the issues raised in the tenants’ application. So too with the tenants’ response.
The tenancy started on 13 August 2021 and ended on 8 November 2023. It was a fixed term tenancy that later became periodic.
The documentary evidence shows that the relationship between the parties was cordial throughout the tenancy and ended amicably.
The application was made nearly 5 months after the tenancy ended apparently encouraged by a friend of the tenants, Mrs McDonald, who describes herself as a landlord of multiple properties for 6 years.
Mrs McDonald relied on the narrative given to her by the tenants. The Tribunal has had the benefit of hearing from both parties. Issues
The tenants seek the following: •A rent refund for 2 months when the landlord was overseas •Reimbursement of motel costs •Exemplary damages for smoke alarms not being reinstated •Compensation for issues with the septic tank •Emotional damages •Reimbursement of the cost of buying bottled water •Vehicle costs •Compensation for loss of enjoyment of the tenancy •Compensation for damage to clothing and the washing machine •Compensation arising from a rent increase. Relevant legal principles:
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenants’ compensation claims are for actual losses and for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy and for emotional harm.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
Section 16A RTA requires a landlord to appoint an agent if outside New Zealand for more than 21 consecutive days. A failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $1,500.00 may be awarded.
Section 24 RTA deals with rent increases. No less than 60 days’ notice of an increase in rent must be given. The tenants’ claims
Before I address each of the tenants’ claims I make the following observation. There is a complete discord between the tenants’ communications with the landlord and the extreme distress that especially Ms Hardacre showed at the hearing.
The tenants’ evidence is that they felt bullied and belittled by the landlords, but they never showed any hint of that in their communications. They gave open access to the premises for when the landlord needed to do things; they invited the landlords to their wedding (they say now out of a sense of obligation). In other words, there is absolutely nothing in the communications between the parties during the tenancy, and even when it ended, to hint at any discord or dissatisfaction.
The landlords expressed shock and surprise that this application was made against them. They said they had no indication at all that the tenants felt so aggrieved. They said they received no breach notices from the tenants during the tenancy or other expressions of unhappiness. They described the tenants as excellent in the way they maintained the premises including the gardens.
The landlords said they were ‘blind-sided’ by the application made against them. They felt overwhelmed by the claims against them which they felt were dishonestly made.
I have already noted the delay before the application was made. It seems to me that the tenants were encouraged to make this application. By the time it came to hearing it had ‘grown legs’. The anxiety the tenants displayed was very obvious.
When the Tribunal considers claims such as this it relies heavily on the objective evidence such as the communications that occurred during the tenancy. Those communications simply do not support the tenants’ evidence that they were bullied and belittled and became quietly submissive fearing to raise matters with the landlord.
The tenants’ case was that they avoided confrontation and felt unable to respond to their bullying and at times aggressive landlords. That is why they corresponded in such a friendly and open manner. I do not accept that. The more probable explanation is that well after the tenancy ended, the tenants thought, and were probably encouraged to think, they might have a case for compensation and for exemplary damages from their landlord. So, they lodged a claim seeking $27,060.00 in total.
The tenants have (well after the tenancy ended) taken umbrage at every perceived slight by the landlords. For example, a simple mistake by the landlords about who owned a shovel has been turned into an accusation of theft. It was a simple error, one for which the landlords apologised.
Other allegations made by the tenants are without any objective grounds. They say the landlords prevented them from having the number of guests they wanted (about 80) at their wedding (the venue being the premises they rented, which was on a septic tank system). They say they felt they had to drastically reduce the numbers of guests as a result. Yet, they emailed the landlords suggesting it was a relief to have a smaller wedding.
The allegation that Ms Hardacre went into early labour twice, all due to the landlords’ actions, is not only a serious and disturbing one for the landlords, but entirely without any objective evidence.
Now I will address the specific claims. A rent refund for 2 months when the landlord was overseas
A landlord has a responsibility to appoint an agent when away from New Zealand for more than 21 days. The landlords did not do that. The failure to appoint an agent is an unlawful act.
Ironically, the landlords said, and I accept, that they were able to deal with a water issue much more quickly from overseas, than would have been the case had the tenants needed to deal with their agent, if they had one.
The law requires the appointment of an agent. The landlords were unaware of that. A failure to know what the law requires of a landlord can establish intent in some cases.
In this case I do not find that the landlords acted with intent. They were negligent, but that is not sufficient. They genuinely believed they could manage any issues while overseas for a relatively short period, and they did.
They are on notice now that any future failure to appoint an agent when absent from New Zealand would likely result in an award of exemplary damages against them.
Without intent, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.
Although I do not award exemplary damages, I award the tenants compensation for the landlords’ failure to appoint an agent. It caused them some concern and confusion.
There is no basis in law to award them a refund of rent for this period. The tenancy remained live. Reimbursement of motel costs
The tenants moved to a motel in Christchurch managed by Mr Hardacre’s mother. It was their choice to do so. They claim costs of $4,500.00. I decline to award those costs. First, it was not necessary for them to move from the premises for the whole period they have claimed. As the tenants put it Focus Motel was our choice due to having a baby and needing extra support during this time. Second, the tenants have not proved that they paid the cost of motel accommodation. They have not suffered any loss. Exemplary damages for smoke alarms not being reinstated
The landlords’ evidence (photos, Healthy Homes report, Home Check report) and the tenants’ photos show that the premises had smoke alarms. The tenants allege that the alarms started beeping, they removed them, notified the landlords, but they were never replaced.
The landlords’ evidence is that the faulty alarms were replaced once they were notified that they were not working correctly.
The evidence is completely at odds. Both parties cannot be correct. I prefer the landlords’ evidence on this point.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Compensation for issues with the septic tank
The tenants allege that the septic tank overflowed causing raw sewage to pool above the ground causing a health hazard. The landlords’ evidence was that there was never any leakage of raw sewage from the tank, but black water pooled above the ground following weather-related high-water levels. They said the septic tank was well away from the premises in a sub-divided area, was fenced off, and was never a health hazard.
There is no evidence of any septic tank failure that required repair or remediation, no local authority compliance notices, nor any other evidence of a landlord breach.
Rural living is different from city living with reticulated services. Septic tanks can have issues due to weather. That someone happens does not necessarily equate to a landlord breach.
The tenants have sought compensation of $10,000.00 for this issue. The claim is wholly unrealistic and is misguided. I dismiss it. Emotional damages
The tenants have described this tenancy as ‘a house of horrors’ yet they stayed for 2 years, even renewing the tenancy to a periodic tenancy for flexibility once the fixed term tenancy ended. They state the stress and worry from the minute we moved into this rental just increased week by week, we just had to do what we could to at least have a roof over our head, but in the end, we just needed out and moved into Jayden’s mum’s place.
The tenants allege that Ms Hardacre went into early labour twice, they were belittled and treated as dumb, they cut down the number of guests invited to their wedding, and they were constantly made to feel that they were at fault, all due to the landlords’ actions.
Yet, their correspondence with the landlords paints a totally different picture – that they were happy, grateful to the landlords for various gestures made by them, happy to co-operate with anything needed, and not worried about having fewer wedding guests at all.
The disconnect, as I have noted, is so great that the Tribunal cannot conclude that the tenants experienced what they now say they did. Or if they did, they painted a completely different picture.
I do not accept that the landlords breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment by entering the premises without consent, or by their general behaviour. Rural tenancies are different, often there are shared driveways and access to shared facilities such as sheds. The tenants’ correspondence does not support any breaches of their quiet enjoyment by the landlords.
The tenants’ claims of emotional harm are simply not credible given the evidence produced by both parties of the communications between them. I dismiss this claim. Reimbursement of the cost of buying bottled water
The tenants said they purchased bottled water due to water issues at the premises. The landlords said they offered to provide filtered water for the relevant period, but the tenants preferred to use bottled water.
The tenants were entitled to make that choice. But they cannot claim compensation when the landlords offered an appropriate remedy, the provision of filtered water from their (neighbouring) premises. I dismiss this claim. Vehicle costs
The claim for vehicle costs traveling between the premises and the motel accommodation they moved to is dismissed. It follows from my finding that the move to the motel in Christchurch managed by Mr Hardacre’s mother was a matter of choice not necessity. Compensation for loss of enjoyment of the tenancy: water issues, damage to clothing and washing machine
For a short time, there was no water in the kitchen. This occurred when the landlords were overseas.
The landlords said that the tenants only needed to turn on a valve to access a reserve tank, and there would have been no problem. By failing to do so, the element in the under-bench water cylinder burnt out and had to be replaced. While there was no water in the kitchen, there was water to the rest of the house once the valve was opened. Even with the landlords being in Alaska, the issue was remedied within one and a half days.
That the tenants did not correctly turn on the valve to access the reserve tank is not their fault. Even if they had been shown how to do that, details like that are easy to forget.
I accept that the tenants suffered some loss of enjoyment due to the limited time when the water was not available in the kitchen.
Separately, the tenants allege that they suffered damage to clothing due to on- going water issues. It is clear from the evidence that there were water issues that cause the water to be discoloured at times.
The landlords described how there can be discoloured water in a tank system at times and how the change to the Council system also resulted in some sediment being disturbed.
These are not landlord breaches as such. I have already noted the differences between rural and non-rural tenancies. The breach is not that water can become discoloured, but rather how the landlord responds to it. A landlord has a responsibility to ensure the supply of potable water.
I accept that the tenants probably suffered some losses due to the water issues. But they never addressed the problems at the time. They waited until well after the tenancy was over. When that happens, the evidential basis for the claims is more difficult.
The tenants produced no evidence that would enable the Tribunal (or them) to adequately quantify their losses due to water issues.
I have decided to award the tenants compensation of $1,000.00 for all the water issues they experienced which resulted in a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. Compensation arising from a rent increase
The landlords accept that they increased the rent without proper notice. The amount of the increased rent ($12.50 per week) must be refunded. I have ordered that. The refund is the remedy. I make no award of compensation. Result
The landlords will pay the tenant compensation of $1,255.35.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee as the application is only marginally successful. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4848961 — Property damage at 231 Woodend Beach Road, Woodend, RD 1, Woodend

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4848961 — Property damage at 231 Woodend Beach Road, Woodend, RD 1, Woodend

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