What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909795?

The tribunal order states: Ashton Nz Property Limited As Agent For Wei Chen And Yingshan Xu must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4909795?

Compensation: Healthy Homes Report: $228.85 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $162.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Replace Curtains: $181.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909795?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10460367-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909795?

The tribunal order states: Ashton Nz Property Limited As Agent For Wei Chen And Yingshan Xu must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4909795?

Compensation: Healthy Homes Report: $228.85 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $162.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Replace Curtains: $181.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909795?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10460367-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

59B Mountbatten Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909795 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4909795 — net $2,680.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace curtains	$181.94		Replace curtains
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$250.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$2,200.00	Section 45
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$162.86	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Healthy Homes report		$228.85	Healthy Homes report
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$181.94	$2,862.15
Net award		$2,680.21
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,680.21

Order

Ashton Nz Property Limited As Agent For Wei Chen And Yingshan Xu must pay Yun Wang and Haiqi Yan $2,680.21 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a mandarin interpreter.
The tenancy began on 3 September 2020 and ended on 8 October 2023.
There were two tenancy agreements signed by the parties. There was a fixed term tenancy from 3 September 2020 until 3 September 2022. The tenancy was periodic from 4 September 2022 until 19 March 2023 when there was a second tenancy agreement where it was fixed until 18 March 2024. The early ending of the fixed term tenancy was not an issue before the Tribunal.
The tenant applied in relation to the landlord failing to lodge the bond, for leaks at the premises, in relation to flooding, for the landlord failing to maintain and for a claim in relation to the Healthy Homes standards.
The landlord applied in relation to damaged or missing items, in relation to work carried out by the tenants and for cleaning and rubbish removal. Tenant application Failure to lodge bond
Yun Wang and Haiqi Yan 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 failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. 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.
The landlord said that the bond was received in September 2020. The landlord said the bond was not lodged because they forgot to lodge it. The landlord says that the bond was refunded straight after the tenancy ended.
It is in the public interest for landlords to lodge bonds. I consider a reasonable award for this act is $250.00. Section 45
Yun Wang and Haiqi Yan claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these 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.
The landlord failed to adequately maintain the premises and failed to comply with the Healthy Homes standards. 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.
There were two significant floods at the premises. The first occurred when the roof leaked in February 2021. The second flood was on the ground floor in March 2022. Both floods were reported to the landlord.
The tenant said that the water would come from the window and walls or roof whenever it rained. At the hearing the tenant produced a video taken on 15 February 2021 which showed leaking from the top of the kitchen window on to the sill. This video had been sent to the landlord on the day it was taken.
In response the landlord said that due to the design of the house there were internal gutters which needed to be cleaned. He said that he arranged for a roofer to come, and the issue was fixed on 19 February 2021. The landlord said the tree was trimmed after the gutter was cleaned.
The tenant said that the landlord only trimmed the tree once and at other times the tenant trimmed it. The tenant said that the leak was not fixed, and it continued to leak on and off. The tenant said that the leaking issue had not been fixed during the tenancy.
The tenant says that due to the leaking, there was a hole in the bedroom wall behind the bookcase because the wall was saturated. Also, the water dripped in the living room and the tenant used a bucket to catch the drips. The landlord denied that there was a hole.
The landlord said that he was notified of the leak from the roof on 6 March 2022 and the following day he arranged for someone to look at it and a handyman on 8 March 2022. The handyman adjusted the pipe but did not see any obvious problem.
A Healthy Homes report dated 5 October 2023 was produced at the hearing. On page 15 of the report there is a photograph of the bedroom wall. The report says that “there are signs of being soaked in water, the wall has become soft/rotten, and there is mould around”.
The landlord did not adequately maintain the premises with the result being that there was significant flooding and ongoing leaking that could have been avoided.
In relation to the Healthy Homes standards the compliance date was 17 July 2023 being 120 days after the renewal of the tenancy on 19 March 2023.
The Healthy Homes report records that the premises were non-compliant in relation to the heating, ventilation, drainage and draught free standards.
At the hearing the landlord incorrectly thought that the Healthy Homes standards did not apply because this was an old tenant. The landlord acknowledged that there was no heating.
The tenant complained of mould and the Healthy Homes report confirmed that there was mould, and it states at page 16, “Your home has a serious damp problem and you should seek professional advice as soon as possible”. The report also had photographs of a large area of mould on the ceiling in the bathroom.
The landlord was aware of the issues with his premises but failed to fix the problems. He thought that the Healthy Homes standards did not apply so did not act when he knew that there were issues. This resulted in the tenants living in premises that were damp, cold, mouldy and draughty. They lived with regular leaking. Tenants are entitled to live in warm, dry and draught free premises.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $2,200.00 is reasonable. I have calculated this award at $100.00 per week for the twelve weeks from when the tenancy should have been Healthy Homes compliant until the end of the tenancy amounting to $1,200.00. I have also awarded $1,000.00 for the maintenance issues in relation to drainage and the faulty power socket which caused a small fire.
As the tenant obtained the Healthy Homes report I have reimbursed the cost of that to the tenant. Loss of amenity
I have awarded the tenant compensation for loss of amenity in relation to the tenant not being able to use the downstairs bedroom after the flooding. The landlord had agreed to reduce the rent by $20.00 per week. That rent reduction started on 25 March 2023 but should have applied from 27 January 2023 when the flood occurred.
I have calculated the compensation at $20.00 per week for the period from 27 January 2023 until 25 March 2023 which amounts to $162.86. Landlord application Damaged or missing items
The landlord claims that the curtains were missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the curtains were in storage and had been damaged by the flood.
On the evidence I have awarded the landlord $181.94 for the missing curtains.
The landlord claimed for the damaged wooden blinds. The tenant said that the blinds were broken at the beginning of the tenancy and that all damage was communicated with the landlord.
The landlord did not provide any pre tenancy photographs of the blinds. Due to a lack of evidence, I am unable to award compensation to the landlord for the blinds.
The landlord claimed for a damaged fridge and wall holes, but no invoices were produced for repairs. There were also no pre tenancy photographs produced. These claims were dismissed.
The landlord claimed for furniture that was damaged including a coffee table and sofa that was in the garden. The tenant said that the sofa had holes and the landlord was asked if it could be moved out. The tenant said that it was old and broken from the start of the tenancy. The tenant said that the coffee table was not safe because it was made of glass. The tenant said the landlord advised to move the table in to the sunroom. The tenant produced a photograph showing that the sofa had a hole in it at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for damaged furniture is not successful. Those claims are dismissed.
I note that the landlord refunded the bond to the tenants in full at the end of the tenancy whereas if the landlord intended to claim for damage that money would have been retained pending resolution of the dispute. Work carried out by the tenants
During the tenancy the tenants altered the laundry to convert it to a bathroom. This work was carried out without council consent and with the landlord’s knowledge. The renovation work was completed on 7 November 2020. The landlord said that the tenant was asked for everything to be returned to original at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that there was agreement with the landlord for the changes. A shower, toilet and basin were installed. At the time of the renovation the tenant said that there was agreement to reinstatement.
The landlord obtained a quote to remove the bathroom and reinstate the laundry, but the work had not been carried out.
At the hearing the tenant agreed to carry out the reinstatement.
As the landlord has not carried out the reinstatement it is possible that he may not do so. As there is no proven loss to the landlord the claim for costs that haven’t been incurred is not accepted. The claim is dismissed. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal. The landlord did not produce an invoice for the cleaning. That claim is dismissed.
In relation to rubbish removal the landlord obtained a quote, but the work had not been carried out. At the hearing the tenant agreed to remove the chicken house, push chair, trampoline, car seat, fridge, desks, baby bed, baby gate, child’s slide and children’s chairs. The items were to be collected on a date after Sunday 16 June 2024. The tenant would contact the landlord to arrange a suitable time.
The claim for rubbish removal is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because Ashton Nz Property Limited As Agent For Wei Chen And Yingshan Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. While the landlord applied for suppression the order has not been made as the landlord has not had significant success with his application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4909795 — net $2,680.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace curtains	$181.94		Replace curtains
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$250.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$2,200.00	Section 45
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$162.86	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Healthy Homes report		$228.85	Healthy Homes report
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$181.94	$2,862.15
Net award		$2,680.21
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,680.21

Order

Ashton Nz Property Limited As Agent For Wei Chen And Yingshan Xu must pay Yun Wang and Haiqi Yan $2,680.21 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a mandarin interpreter.
The tenancy began on 3 September 2020 and ended on 8 October 2023.
There were two tenancy agreements signed by the parties. There was a fixed term tenancy from 3 September 2020 until 3 September 2022. The tenancy was periodic from 4 September 2022 until 19 March 2023 when there was a second tenancy agreement where it was fixed until 18 March 2024. The early ending of the fixed term tenancy was not an issue before the Tribunal.
The tenant applied in relation to the landlord failing to lodge the bond, for leaks at the premises, in relation to flooding, for the landlord failing to maintain and for a claim in relation to the Healthy Homes standards.
The landlord applied in relation to damaged or missing items, in relation to work carried out by the tenants and for cleaning and rubbish removal. Tenant application Failure to lodge bond
Yun Wang and Haiqi Yan 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 failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. 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.
The landlord said that the bond was received in September 2020. The landlord said the bond was not lodged because they forgot to lodge it. The landlord says that the bond was refunded straight after the tenancy ended.
It is in the public interest for landlords to lodge bonds. I consider a reasonable award for this act is $250.00. Section 45
Yun Wang and Haiqi Yan claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these 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.
The landlord failed to adequately maintain the premises and failed to comply with the Healthy Homes standards. 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.
There were two significant floods at the premises. The first occurred when the roof leaked in February 2021. The second flood was on the ground floor in March 2022. Both floods were reported to the landlord.
The tenant said that the water would come from the window and walls or roof whenever it rained. At the hearing the tenant produced a video taken on 15 February 2021 which showed leaking from the top of the kitchen window on to the sill. This video had been sent to the landlord on the day it was taken.
In response the landlord said that due to the design of the house there were internal gutters which needed to be cleaned. He said that he arranged for a roofer to come, and the issue was fixed on 19 February 2021. The landlord said the tree was trimmed after the gutter was cleaned.
The tenant said that the landlord only trimmed the tree once and at other times the tenant trimmed it. The tenant said that the leak was not fixed, and it continued to leak on and off. The tenant said that the leaking issue had not been fixed during the tenancy.
The tenant says that due to the leaking, there was a hole in the bedroom wall behind the bookcase because the wall was saturated. Also, the water dripped in the living room and the tenant used a bucket to catch the drips. The landlord denied that there was a hole.
The landlord said that he was notified of the leak from the roof on 6 March 2022 and the following day he arranged for someone to look at it and a handyman on 8 March 2022. The handyman adjusted the pipe but did not see any obvious problem.
A Healthy Homes report dated 5 October 2023 was produced at the hearing. On page 15 of the report there is a photograph of the bedroom wall. The report says that “there are signs of being soaked in water, the wall has become soft/rotten, and there is mould around”.
The landlord did not adequately maintain the premises with the result being that there was significant flooding and ongoing leaking that could have been avoided.
In relation to the Healthy Homes standards the compliance date was 17 July 2023 being 120 days after the renewal of the tenancy on 19 March 2023.
The Healthy Homes report records that the premises were non-compliant in relation to the heating, ventilation, drainage and draught free standards.
At the hearing the landlord incorrectly thought that the Healthy Homes standards did not apply because this was an old tenant. The landlord acknowledged that there was no heating.
The tenant complained of mould and the Healthy Homes report confirmed that there was mould, and it states at page 16, “Your home has a serious damp problem and you should seek professional advice as soon as possible”. The report also had photographs of a large area of mould on the ceiling in the bathroom.
The landlord was aware of the issues with his premises but failed to fix the problems. He thought that the Healthy Homes standards did not apply so did not act when he knew that there were issues. This resulted in the tenants living in premises that were damp, cold, mouldy and draughty. They lived with regular leaking. Tenants are entitled to live in warm, dry and draught free premises.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $2,200.00 is reasonable. I have calculated this award at $100.00 per week for the twelve weeks from when the tenancy should have been Healthy Homes compliant until the end of the tenancy amounting to $1,200.00. I have also awarded $1,000.00 for the maintenance issues in relation to drainage and the faulty power socket which caused a small fire.
As the tenant obtained the Healthy Homes report I have reimbursed the cost of that to the tenant. Loss of amenity
I have awarded the tenant compensation for loss of amenity in relation to the tenant not being able to use the downstairs bedroom after the flooding. The landlord had agreed to reduce the rent by $20.00 per week. That rent reduction started on 25 March 2023 but should have applied from 27 January 2023 when the flood occurred.
I have calculated the compensation at $20.00 per week for the period from 27 January 2023 until 25 March 2023 which amounts to $162.86. Landlord application Damaged or missing items
The landlord claims that the curtains were missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the curtains were in storage and had been damaged by the flood.
On the evidence I have awarded the landlord $181.94 for the missing curtains.
The landlord claimed for the damaged wooden blinds. The tenant said that the blinds were broken at the beginning of the tenancy and that all damage was communicated with the landlord.
The landlord did not provide any pre tenancy photographs of the blinds. Due to a lack of evidence, I am unable to award compensation to the landlord for the blinds.
The landlord claimed for a damaged fridge and wall holes, but no invoices were produced for repairs. There were also no pre tenancy photographs produced. These claims were dismissed.
The landlord claimed for furniture that was damaged including a coffee table and sofa that was in the garden. The tenant said that the sofa had holes and the landlord was asked if it could be moved out. The tenant said that it was old and broken from the start of the tenancy. The tenant said that the coffee table was not safe because it was made of glass. The tenant said the landlord advised to move the table in to the sunroom. The tenant produced a photograph showing that the sofa had a hole in it at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for damaged furniture is not successful. Those claims are dismissed.
I note that the landlord refunded the bond to the tenants in full at the end of the tenancy whereas if the landlord intended to claim for damage that money would have been retained pending resolution of the dispute. Work carried out by the tenants
During the tenancy the tenants altered the laundry to convert it to a bathroom. This work was carried out without council consent and with the landlord’s knowledge. The renovation work was completed on 7 November 2020. The landlord said that the tenant was asked for everything to be returned to original at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that there was agreement with the landlord for the changes. A shower, toilet and basin were installed. At the time of the renovation the tenant said that there was agreement to reinstatement.
The landlord obtained a quote to remove the bathroom and reinstate the laundry, but the work had not been carried out.
At the hearing the tenant agreed to carry out the reinstatement.
As the landlord has not carried out the reinstatement it is possible that he may not do so. As there is no proven loss to the landlord the claim for costs that haven’t been incurred is not accepted. The claim is dismissed. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal. The landlord did not produce an invoice for the cleaning. That claim is dismissed.
In relation to rubbish removal the landlord obtained a quote, but the work had not been carried out. At the hearing the tenant agreed to remove the chicken house, push chair, trampoline, car seat, fridge, desks, baby bed, baby gate, child’s slide and children’s chairs. The items were to be collected on a date after Sunday 16 June 2024. The tenant would contact the landlord to arrange a suitable time.
The claim for rubbish removal is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because Ashton Nz Property Limited As Agent For Wei Chen And Yingshan Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. While the landlord applied for suppression the order has not been made as the landlord has not had significant success with his application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909795 — Exemplary damages at 59B Mountbatten Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909795 — Exemplary damages at 59B Mountbatten Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions