What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4926514?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ruofei Huang and Ruofei (Katie)

How much money was awarded in case 4926514?

Compensation: Faulty Garage Remote: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Intercom: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926514?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11018515-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4926514?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ruofei Huang and Ruofei (Katie)

How much money was awarded in case 4926514?

Compensation: Faulty Garage Remote: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Intercom: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926514?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11018515-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Mount Taylor Drive, Glendowie, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4926514 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4926514 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of intercom	$600.00	Loss of intercom
Compensation: Faulty garage remote	$100.00	Faulty garage remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$720.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Katie Huang. The tenant was represented by Leonne Pfeiffer.

Adam Pfeiffer claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”).

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.

Breaching this obligation 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 RTA.

For exemplary damages to be available to an applicant, the claim must be brought within 12 months of the commission of the breach, see RTA section 109(2)(b).

The tenant has brought a number of claims which by her own admission are minor. She stated that the claims paint a picture of a tenancy where the landlord failed to respond to maintenance issues in a timely manner. The tenant is seeking compensation of one week’s rent ($1,225.00) for each year of the six- year tenancy. This amounts to $7,350.00.

The claims are as follows: a. The premises had approximately twenty curtains that needed opening and closing each day. Because of the type of curtain system that had been installed, every 2-3 weeks a sharp curtain hook would fall off one or other of the curtains. This was a hazard to the tenant’s children. The hooks would also catch on the net curtains behind, and this made the curtains difficult to operate. In response, the landlord stated they didn’t realise the curtain hooks were falling off so often. I accept that curtain hooks catching on curtain nets and falling out of curtains, might be an irritation to a tenant. However, I do not consider it goes so far as to warrant compensation under a claim of failing to maintain a premises. To that extent, this claim is not proved. b. Two remote controls were supplied by the landlord, each of which was meant to open the gate and the garage door. One of the remote controls consistently did not work opening the garage door. In response, the landlord stated that the problem was with the gate which was shared by four premises, and a repair that had been done to it. The landlord swapped the remote in an attempt to remedy the problem, but this didn’t work. I find that to have one of two remotes not fully functional is a minor breach of section 45 of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA. This claim is proved and I make an award of a nominal amount, $100.00 as a remedy. c. An intercom system was installed which was meant to allow visitors to communicate with tenants from the front gate, and to allow the tenants to open the front gate from inside the premises. The intercom system stopped working in November 2023 and by the end of the tenancy in June 2024 had not been repaired. During this period of approximately 30 weeks, courier deliveries were missed and that the gate needed to be opened manually by the tenants. The landlord stated that the problem with the intercom was related to the reprogramming the gate, which they unsuccessfully attempted to remedy. I am persuaded that this was a significant loss of amenity for the tenants. The landlord does not dispute failing to take the necessary steps needed to remedy the problem. The claim is proved. I consider the value of the amenity to the tenant to be conservatively assessed at $20.00 per week, and the award I make for this claim is based on that amount. d. For a certain period of time (possibly some time between a Healthy Homes Assessment conducted in 2021 which stated that all extractor fans were operating correctly, and 2023 when the bathroom extractor fan was replaced) the bathroom extractor fan was not working. During this time the only ventilation for the bathroom was an awning style window that was approximately one metre wide. Because the period in, and the length of time which which the extractor fan was not working is so uncertain, I am unable to find this claim proved. e. In June 2019 a hand towel hook in the powder room fell off and wasn’t fixed until September 2019. The landlord stated that correspondence regarding this issue was with a different property manager and given the passage of time is now lost. I consider this a very minor issue, which it may have been reasonable for the tenant to address themselves, and in the absence of that, I find that the landlord addressing this issue within a three month time frame to not be unreasonable. This claim is not proved. f. The premises had three ensuite toilets and two stand alone toilets. The downstairs stand-alone toilet developed a leak under the floor which caused the floor to bubble and swell. This was first noticed by the landlord in late 2018. The toilet was taken out in March 2020 shortly before New Zealand went into it’s first COVID-19 lockdown. The toilet was not reinstated until September 2020. The floorboards were never repaired. The tenant’s view was that the gaps needed to be filled with silicon. The landlord stated that the problem was assessed and addressed as needed. The repair of the toilet was interrupted by the lockdown procedures but was eventually completed as time and resources permitted. The assessment of the flooring was that no remedial work was required. On this claim I am persuaded by the landlord’s submissions, and I do not find the claim proved. g. From the beginning of the tenancy, 10-15 nails in the deck continually pushed out leaving the exposed heads a risk of scratching the tenant’s children’s feet. In response the landlord stated that when inspections were done, the nails were hammered back in. The deck was more substantially repaired in 2022. I am not persuaded that the extent of the problem as expressed by the tenant goes so far as to breach the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA. The tenant stated that her solution to the problem was to have the children wear shoes when they went out on the deck. Although I consider going barefoot in New Zealand a time honoured privilege, having to wear shoes occasionally is a minor inconvenience at most. This claim is not proved. h. A bad odour emanated from the drains in one or two of the bathrooms. In response the landlord stated that this was never confirmed during inspections, but the landlord did send a plumber out to take a look at the problem, and the plumber assessed that the waste seals needed replacing. I am not persuaded that a breach of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises has been proved in this claim. The information provided is that the landlord did respond to the problem as they thought was appropriate. i. The air-conditioning unit stopped working in December 2019 and wasn’t repaired until February 2020. The landlord stated that the delay was caused by the fact that the air-conditioning unit was still under warranty and this meant the original installer was required to fix it. I accept that four to eight weeks without an air-conditioning unit over a Christmas break would cause hardship. However I am not persuaded that the landlord was failing to maintain the premises. In my view the delay in fixing the unit can be attributed to the time of year in conjunction with the specific circumstances of the unit being under warranty. I do not consider compensation is warranted. This claim is not proved.

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.

Having awarded compensation to the tenants for the more serious of the claims, and having considered the above factors, I do not consider it necessary to award exemplary damages in this case.

Because Adam Pfeiffer has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4926514 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of intercom	$600.00	Loss of intercom
Compensation: Faulty garage remote	$100.00	Faulty garage remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$720.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Katie Huang. The tenant was represented by Leonne Pfeiffer.

Adam Pfeiffer claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”).

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.

Breaching this obligation 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 RTA.

For exemplary damages to be available to an applicant, the claim must be brought within 12 months of the commission of the breach, see RTA section 109(2)(b).

Having awarded compensation to the tenants for the more serious of the claims, and having considered the above factors, I do not consider it necessary to award exemplary damages in this case.

Because Adam Pfeiffer has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926514 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Mount Taylor Drive, Glendowie, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926514 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Mount Taylor Drive, Glendowie, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions