What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4988068?

The tribunal order states: Renthub Limited As Agent For Andrea Mcgregor must pay Maddison Emma

How much money was awarded in case 4988068?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4988068?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4988068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11058381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4988068?

The tribunal order states: Renthub Limited As Agent For Andrea Mcgregor must pay Maddison Emma

How much money was awarded in case 4988068?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4988068?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4988068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11058381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

377A Triangle Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4988068 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4988068 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Order

Renthub Limited As Agent For Andrea Mcgregor must pay Maddison Emma Butler and Rohan Anthony Mudgway $3,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant applied to be represented at the hearing by Mr O’Carroll. This request was granted in accordance with section 93(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the basis that the other landlord consented and the amount in dispute was more than $6,000.00.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals: i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
This tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023 so the premises should have complied with the HHS by 13 April 2024.
The landlord does not dispute that the landlord has breached the HHS. The landlord said that they had obtained a Healthy Homes report in October 2022. The report shows that the premises did not comply with the HHS in the following respects: heating; insulation; draught stopping; drainage and ventilation.
The landlord said that it obtained a quotation from the same contractor who prepared the report to bring the home to the HHS. The landlord said it advised the contractor that the quotation was accepted in late 2023. Then, in March 2024, the landlord instructed the contractor to perform the work and to contact the tenant directly to make the necessary arrangements to access the property. The landlord provided email correspondence showing that it followed up with the contractor to see if the work had been performed. The landlord’s oral evidence was that the contractor advised in telephone conversations that it tried but had not been able to contact the tenant.
The tenant says, and the landlord accepts, that the contractor did not, in fact, try to make contact with the tenant.
The landlord provided email correspondence showing that in June 2024 the landlord followed up with a different representative of the contractor. The frustration of the landlord’s agent in this email was evident. She wrote: Thank you for getting back to me so fast, unfortunately, the owner arranged the original quote then the person ghosted us when it came to booking it in  We have been trying to book it in since January and got no where, are they still in the business? It has delayed our healthy homes compliant significantly. We have also contacted head office as well and got no where.
On 08 July 2024, Mr O’Carroll wrote to the landlord on behalf of the tenant issuing a notice under the RTA to remedy the issue of non-compliance with the HHS and seeking compensation.
Mr O’Carroll advises that the work was completed by the end of July 2024. The certificate of compliance for the heating standard was issued on 07 August 2024. The other HHS issues were certified as compliant between 07 August and 11 October 2024.
Mr O’Carroll says that the tenant was very uncomfortable during the winter months living in a “cold, damp and drafty house”. The tenancy is for a fixed term ending on 11 January 2025. Mr O’Carroll says that the tenant believed they had to remain in the property until the end of the fixed-term. Mr O’Carroll says that this matter has impacted not only the tenants’ physical comfort but their mental health.
The landlord says that it took steps to ensure compliance by the required date but was let down by its contractor. The landlord says it did provide a portable heater. The landlord also says that the first it was aware of the tenant’s discomfort was when it received Mr O’Carroll’s letter of 08 July 2024.
Section 45(1A) of the RTA provides that breaching the obligation to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Section 109(3) of the RTA provides that 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.
I am satisfied it is just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew that the premises did not meet the HHS and that compliance was required by 13 April 2024; b. The tenant suffered the stress and inconvenience of living in a cold and damp property over the winter months; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity they suffered as a result of the breaches; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance and healthy homes obligations.
I acknowledge the difficulty the landlord had with the contractor and that this contributed to the delay in complying with the HHS. However, the tenant cannot hold the contractor to account and should not be penalised for its failures. I also consider there are further steps the landlord could have taken to ensure compliance by the relevant date including instructing a different contractor to carry out the work.
The landlord says it was not aware of the impact the failure to carry out the required work was having on the tenant. Mr O’Donnell says that it was not up to the tenant to raise the issue but for the landlord to meet its obligations. I disagree, tenants do have obligations to raise matters with landlords: section 49 of the RTA provides that where a party breaches the RTA, the other party must act to mitigate the breach. This includes notifying the other party of the inconvenience and stress the breach is having on them. That said, I do not find that this completely absolves the landlord of responsibility as the landlord knew it had not complied with the HHS and ought to have known that this would have a negative impact on the tenant.
The tenant was inconvenienced for a period of around 3.5 months. The tenant deserves compensation for this inconvenience and the stress suffered. I award $1,500 in compensation. I award a further sum of $2,000 in exemplary damages. In reaching this amount, I have considered the following factors: that four HHS were breached; and that the tenant was inconvenienced during the winter months. I also take into account: the difficulty the landlord had with its contractor in arranging for it to carry out the work; the relatively short period of time the tenant was inconvenienced; that the landlord did not realise the level of inconvenience its failure to comply with the HHS was having on the tenant until it received Mr O’Carroll’s letter on 08 July 2024; and that once this letter was received swift action was taken. Other matters:
The tenancy is due to terminate on 15 January 2024. During the hearing, the tenant said that they would like to leave the premises. I record in this decision the landlord’s statement that if the tenant wished to vacate the premises before the end of the fixed-term, provided the tenant gave one month’s notice it would not seek to enforce the fixed-term tenancy.
During the hearing, the tenant raised concerns regarding the roof leaking. The landlord said it has sent a contractor to assess this issue and is in the process of obtaining a second opinion. The landlord said that if the roof can be fixed without the need to replace it, this should be done within one month.
The tenant raised two further issues: a rotting door frame and the vinyl in the bathroom which is lifting from the floorboards. The landlord said that this was the first time it has been told of these issues and that it would address them.
I do not make any findings in relation to these matters as they were not part of the initial application. However, should the matters not be resolved, the tenant can, of course, takes steps under the RTA including issuing a 14-day notice for the breach to be remedied and/or applying to the Tribunal for a works order.
The tenant has been wholly successful in their application. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4988068 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Order

Renthub Limited As Agent For Andrea Mcgregor must pay Maddison Emma Butler and Rohan Anthony Mudgway $3,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant applied to be represented at the hearing by Mr O’Carroll. This request was granted in accordance with section 93(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the basis that the other landlord consented and the amount in dispute was more than $6,000.00.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals: i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
This tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023 so the premises should have complied with the HHS by 13 April 2024.
The landlord does not dispute that the landlord has breached the HHS. The landlord said that they had obtained a Healthy Homes report in October 2022. The report shows that the premises did not comply with the HHS in the following respects: heating; insulation; draught stopping; drainage and ventilation.
The landlord said that it obtained a quotation from the same contractor who prepared the report to bring the home to the HHS. The landlord said it advised the contractor that the quotation was accepted in late 2023. Then, in March 2024, the landlord instructed the contractor to perform the work and to contact the tenant directly to make the necessary arrangements to access the property. The landlord provided email correspondence showing that it followed up with the contractor to see if the work had been performed. The landlord’s oral evidence was that the contractor advised in telephone conversations that it tried but had not been able to contact the tenant.
The tenant says, and the landlord accepts, that the contractor did not, in fact, try to make contact with the tenant.
The landlord provided email correspondence showing that in June 2024 the landlord followed up with a different representative of the contractor. The frustration of the landlord’s agent in this email was evident. She wrote: Thank you for getting back to me so fast, unfortunately, the owner arranged the original quote then the person ghosted us when it came to booking it in  We have been trying to book it in since January and got no where, are they still in the business? It has delayed our healthy homes compliant significantly. We have also contacted head office as well and got no where.
On 08 July 2024, Mr O’Carroll wrote to the landlord on behalf of the tenant issuing a notice under the RTA to remedy the issue of non-compliance with the HHS and seeking compensation.
Mr O’Carroll advises that the work was completed by the end of July 2024. The certificate of compliance for the heating standard was issued on 07 August 2024. The other HHS issues were certified as compliant between 07 August and 11 October 2024.
Mr O’Carroll says that the tenant was very uncomfortable during the winter months living in a “cold, damp and drafty house”. The tenancy is for a fixed term ending on 11 January 2025. Mr O’Carroll says that the tenant believed they had to remain in the property until the end of the fixed-term. Mr O’Carroll says that this matter has impacted not only the tenants’ physical comfort but their mental health.
The landlord says that it took steps to ensure compliance by the required date but was let down by its contractor. The landlord says it did provide a portable heater. The landlord also says that the first it was aware of the tenant’s discomfort was when it received Mr O’Carroll’s letter of 08 July 2024.
Section 45(1A) of the RTA provides that breaching the obligation to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Section 109(3) of the RTA provides that 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.
I am satisfied it is just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew that the premises did not meet the HHS and that compliance was required by 13 April 2024; b. The tenant suffered the stress and inconvenience of living in a cold and damp property over the winter months; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity they suffered as a result of the breaches; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance and healthy homes obligations.
I acknowledge the difficulty the landlord had with the contractor and that this contributed to the delay in complying with the HHS. However, the tenant cannot hold the contractor to account and should not be penalised for its failures. I also consider there are further steps the landlord could have taken to ensure compliance by the relevant date including instructing a different contractor to carry out the work.
The landlord says it was not aware of the impact the failure to carry out the required work was having on the tenant. Mr O’Donnell says that it was not up to the tenant to raise the issue but for the landlord to meet its obligations. I disagree, tenants do have obligations to raise matters with landlords: section 49 of the RTA provides that where a party breaches the RTA, the other party must act to mitigate the breach. This includes notifying the other party of the inconvenience and stress the breach is having on them. That said, I do not find that this completely absolves the landlord of responsibility as the landlord knew it had not complied with the HHS and ought to have known that this would have a negative impact on the tenant.
The tenant was inconvenienced for a period of around 3.5 months. The tenant deserves compensation for this inconvenience and the stress suffered. I award $1,500 in compensation. I award a further sum of $2,000 in exemplary damages. In reaching this amount, I have considered the following factors: that four HHS were breached; and that the tenant was inconvenienced during the winter months. I also take into account: the difficulty the landlord had with its contractor in arranging for it to carry out the work; the relatively short period of time the tenant was inconvenienced; that the landlord did not realise the level of inconvenience its failure to comply with the HHS was having on the tenant until it received Mr O’Carroll’s letter on 08 July 2024; and that once this letter was received swift action was taken. Other matters:
The tenancy is due to terminate on 15 January 2024. During the hearing, the tenant said that they would like to leave the premises. I record in this decision the landlord’s statement that if the tenant wished to vacate the premises before the end of the fixed-term, provided the tenant gave one month’s notice it would not seek to enforce the fixed-term tenancy.
During the hearing, the tenant raised concerns regarding the roof leaking. The landlord said it has sent a contractor to assess this issue and is in the process of obtaining a second opinion. The landlord said that if the roof can be fixed without the need to replace it, this should be done within one month.
The tenant raised two further issues: a rotting door frame and the vinyl in the bathroom which is lifting from the floorboards. The landlord said that this was the first time it has been told of these issues and that it would address them.
I do not make any findings in relation to these matters as they were not part of the initial application. However, should the matters not be resolved, the tenant can, of course, takes steps under the RTA including issuing a 14-day notice for the breach to be remedied and/or applying to the Tribunal for a works order.
The tenant has been wholly successful in their application. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4988068 — Exemplary damages at 377A Triangle Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4988068 — Exemplary damages at 377A Triangle Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

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