What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4933195?

The tribunal order states: Wgr Property Management Limited - As Agent For Arthur Pryce Davies must

How much money was awarded in case 4933195?

Compensation: $4,350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933195?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10676090-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4933195?

The tribunal order states: Wgr Property Management Limited - As Agent For Arthur Pryce Davies must

How much money was awarded in case 4933195?

Compensation: $4,350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933195?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10676090-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 24 Ross Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933195 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933195 — net $4,377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation by way of rent refund	$4,350.00	Compensation by way of rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,377.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,377.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

Initially the tenants sought a reduction in the term of their fixed term tenancy, and compensation and exemplary damages for the state of the premises and unlawful entry.

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 12/4/2024 to 30/3/2025 at $335.00 rent per week.

By the time of the hearing the issue of a reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy was moot because by agreement the tenancy had ended, and the tenants vacated the premises on 23/7/2023.

The bond of $1,005.00 has been refunded to the tenants.

The tenants sought a refund of $4,350.00 being the three months rent they had paid while living in the premises.

The premises are a two storey wooden house, approximately 100 years old, split into four flats.

The tenants lived in one downstairs flat and the owner in the other downstairs flat.

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, especially in regard to leaks in the roof and water ingress through walls and in the bathroom.

In support of their claim the tenants provided photographs of dampness and mould in the kitchen, pantry, bedroom, ceilings, underside of the bath, the wall between the bathroom and bedroom, correspondence with the landlord and a 14 day notice dated 2/7/2024.

On the other hand, the landlord provided invoices for plumbing and roof work and the owner of the premises gave evidence.

The owner said the plumber had fixed the roof temporarily and had then undertaken a permanent fix. He believed that the bathroom leak was due to the pipes but that it had not been leaking for long.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find the evidence supports that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable, with regard to the leaking roof, shower and taps in the bathroom and water ingress through the wall between the bedroom and lounge.

I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that they became aware of these issues at the beginning of the tenancy and although immediately advising the landlord it took some time to elicit any response.

Although the owner suggested that the repairs on the roof only took two months, the invoice provided for the roof work does not support his evidence, other than what he has handwritten on the account.

Further the initial property inspection report of 10/4/2024 confirms stains on both bedroom carpets and records the condition of both the inside and outside as “satisfactory”, with “most surfaces have just been painted”.

The tenancy agreement records the spouting as blocked at the beginning of the tenancy, which does not support the owner’s assertion that the spouting was cleaned every two months.

Despite the evidence of the owner I am satisfied that the owner and landlord have failed to maintain the roof in particular, which has led to dampness and mould issues.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The tenants submitted that the owner had entered the premises on several occasions, sometimes with the plumber, without the appropriate notice or consent.

In particular, the tenants said that the owner and plumber entered via the front door, without knocking on 19/6/2024 and attempted to access the bathroom while one of the tenants was using it.

The owner of the premises denied ever entering the premises without consent or notice, or with tradespeople.

However, the owner did concede that he didn’t ask tradespeople to give notice to tenants before they entered the premises.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I am not persuaded by the evidence of the owner that he did not enter the premises without notice or consent.

Put simply the evidence of the owner was not credible, considering that he did not tell the tradespeople he used to give notice to the tenants.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and entered without consent and notice, I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.

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.

Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).

In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).

First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.

For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.

That decision, which was a case about the failure to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and Insurance details, also confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliaments intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”

I consider an inference can be drawn from the evidence that the owner intentionally failed to comply with his obligations and turned a ‘blind eye’ to the requirements of the Act because he is the only one responsible for repairs and maintenance. This makes it difficult for the agent to contact the owner and leads to delays with repairs which adversely affects tenants.

Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.

In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.

In the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties I have not awarded exemplary damages against the landlord but have instead awarded the rent asked for by the tenants.

My reason for this is that, despite all the difficulties with the owner and agent, the tenants did have the benefit of living in the premises for three months.

I consider an award of exemplary damages over and above refund of the rent would be out of all proportion to the unlawful acts committed by the landlord, who at least has made reasonable attempts to maintain a large, old property.

As Theodore Felix Matua Robertson-Rowe, Rebecca Hayley Busfield has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenants did not ask for name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933195 — net $4,377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation by way of rent refund	$4,350.00	Compensation by way of rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,377.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,377.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

Initially the tenants sought a reduction in the term of their fixed term tenancy, and compensation and exemplary damages for the state of the premises and unlawful entry.

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 12/4/2024 to 30/3/2025 at $335.00 rent per week.

By the time of the hearing the issue of a reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy was moot because by agreement the tenancy had ended, and the tenants vacated the premises on 23/7/2023.

The bond of $1,005.00 has been refunded to the tenants.

The tenants sought a refund of $4,350.00 being the three months rent they had paid while living in the premises.

The premises are a two storey wooden house, approximately 100 years old, split into four flats.

The tenants lived in one downstairs flat and the owner in the other downstairs flat.

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

On the other hand, the landlord provided invoices for plumbing and roof work and the owner of the premises gave evidence.

The owner said the plumber had fixed the roof temporarily and had then undertaken a permanent fix. He believed that the bathroom leak was due to the pipes but that it had not been leaking for long.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenancy agreement records the spouting as blocked at the beginning of the tenancy, which does not support the owner’s assertion that the spouting was cleaned every two months.

Despite the evidence of the owner I am satisfied that the owner and landlord have failed to maintain the roof in particular, which has led to dampness and mould issues.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The tenants submitted that the owner had entered the premises on several occasions, sometimes with the plumber, without the appropriate notice or consent.

In particular, the tenants said that the owner and plumber entered via the front door, without knocking on 19/6/2024 and attempted to access the bathroom while one of the tenants was using it.

The owner of the premises denied ever entering the premises without consent or notice, or with tradespeople.

However, the owner did concede that he didn’t ask tradespeople to give notice to tenants before they entered the premises.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I am not persuaded by the evidence of the owner that he did not enter the premises without notice or consent.

Put simply the evidence of the owner was not credible, considering that he did not tell the tradespeople he used to give notice to the tenants.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).

First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.

In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.

My reason for this is that, despite all the difficulties with the owner and agent, the tenants did have the benefit of living in the premises for three months.

As Theodore Felix Matua Robertson-Rowe, Rebecca Hayley Busfield has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenants did not ask for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933195 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 24 Ross Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933195 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 24 Ross Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent or notice?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without consent or notice?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions