What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5017551?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell at 29

How much money was awarded in case 5017551?

Compensation: Failure to maintain: F…: $1,371.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain: G…: $3,788.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain: R…: $10,228.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,847.41 awarded to landlord; To 05/09/21; 26/07/22 To 21/12/23; 1…: $3,900.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $733.47 awarded to landlord; Week Rent Rebate: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017551?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11182337-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5017551?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell at 29

How much money was awarded in case 5017551?

Compensation: Failure to maintain: F…: $1,371.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain: G…: $3,788.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain: R…: $10,228.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,847.41 awarded to landlord; To 05/09/21; 26/07/22 To 21/12/23; 1…: $3,900.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $733.47 awarded to landlord; Week Rent Rebate: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017551?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11182337-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Stephanie Close, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5017551 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017551 — net $11,707.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 05/12/24	$12,847.41		Rent arrears (to 05/12/24
Water rates (to 28/11/24	$733.47		2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent and water rates arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to maintain: Roof leaks 10/04/21		$10,228.57	Failure to maintain: Roof leaks 10/04/21
to 05/09/21; 26/07/22 to 21/12/23; 14/06/24 to 08/08/24 at		$3,900.00	to 05/09/21; 26/07/22 to 21/12/23; 14/06/24 to 08/08/24 at
Compensation: Failure to maintain: Gas leak(s) 10/04/21		$3,788.57	Failure to maintain: Gas leak(s) 10/04/21
Compensation: Failure to maintain: Flooding downstairs		$1,371.43	Failure to maintain: Flooding downstairs
week rent rebate		$600.00	week rent rebate
Exemplary damages: s45(1) of the RTA breaches		$5,400.00	s45(1) of the RTA breaches
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$13,607.88	$25,315.57
Net award		$11,707.69
Bond		$3,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$11,707.69

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017551 — net $11,707.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 05/12/24	$12,847.41		Rent arrears (to 05/12/24
Water rates (to 28/11/24	$733.47		2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent and water rates arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to maintain: Roof leaks 10/04/21		$10,228.57	Failure to maintain: Roof leaks 10/04/21
to 05/09/21; 26/07/22 to 21/12/23; 14/06/24 to 08/08/24 at		$3,900.00	to 05/09/21; 26/07/22 to 21/12/23; 14/06/24 to 08/08/24 at
Compensation: Failure to maintain: Gas leak(s) 10/04/21		$3,788.57	Failure to maintain: Gas leak(s) 10/04/21
Compensation: Failure to maintain: Flooding downstairs		$1,371.43	Failure to maintain: Flooding downstairs
week rent rebate		$600.00	week rent rebate
Exemplary damages: s45(1) of the RTA breaches		$5,400.00	s45(1) of the RTA breaches
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$13,607.88	$25,315.57
Net award		$11,707.69
Bond		$3,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$11,707.69

Order

The tenancy of Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell at 29 Stephanie Close, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 is terminated, and possession is granted to Seaside Property Management Limited As An Agent For Jguo Developments Ltd., at 11:59pm on Sunday 8 December 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,920.00 (5021586-004) to Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell immediately.
Seaside Property Management Limited As An Agent For Jguo Developments Ltd. must pay Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell $11,707.69 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent and water rates arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
The tenants have made a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants have already moved to a new tenancy on 29 September 2024 but has some of their water damaged belongings are still in the garage and there is a skip full of rubbish still to be collected.
The landlord has agreed for the tenants to return the keys on Monday 9 December 2024 and to have until 16 December 2024 to clean the premise to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances and to remove all their water damaged belongings from the garage. To access the premise after 9 December 2024, the tenants will need to contact the property manager.

What rent and water rates are owing?

The landlord provided rent and water records which proved the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $12,847.41 for rent and $733.47 for water.
At the hearing, I had not been able to calculate the remedies awarded would was unsure whether the amounts awarded would be sufficient to equitably offset all of the debt the tenants owe to the landlord. The tenants have proven they have an equitable offset for the rent and water rates arrears.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1) of the RTA obligations?

Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a),(b),(bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, the landlord is required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair.
Under s45(1)(bb) the landlord must comply with the healthy homes standards.
Under s45(1)(c) the landlord must also comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes a requirement for the landlord to comply with s15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the rental premise is free from dampness.
To prove these claims the tenants must meet the standard of proof “on the balance of probabilities”. This means they must prove that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. The landlord then has the opportunity to disprove the tenants claims, but the tenants must meet that burden of proof first.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which a maximum award of exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. As such, the issue of exemplary damages will be addressed at the end of this section of the Order.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants or reimbursement for actual costs incurred by the tenants that should not have been borne by them.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, which requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenants produced videos and photographs of the premise when they moved into it. This evidence shows that there was bird excrement inside the doorways of the house as well as ingrained dirt on the tiles that had not been cleaned and mould and dirt on the windowsills and skirting boards and considerable amounts of mould in the laundry. There was also a dead rat still connected to the stove power cord that had been electrocuted when it chewed through that power cord.
The landlord accepted at the hearing that the previous tenants had not cleaned the premise as well as they should have, and that the landlord did not undertake additional cleaning of the premise between tenancies.
I am satisfied that the premises were far from reasonably clean when the tenants took possession of the property and find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state.
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 tenants confirmed they had raised the lack of cleanliness with the property manager and she had told them the ingrained dirt on the tiles was “the pattern of the tiles” and “the house is old”. The property manager repeated these statements at least four times during the hearing when looking at the video and photographs produced by the tenants. It was evident from the evidence produced that parts of the flooring has a swirl pattern in it but there were parts of the flooring that was ingrained dirt and fifth that could be removed. The video in particular shows parts of the tiles that are clean and many parts of the tiles that have varying degrees of removable dirt and stains.
The lack of cleanliness was obvious. The premises were very far from reasonably clean. The tenants had forewarned the property manager of cleanliness and sanitation issues and was told “that is the pattern of the tiles”. It follows that the landlord’s breach was intentional. The tenant was left to dispose of the dead water rat herself and to clean the bird excrement, mould and dirt from the floors, floorboards, windowsills and skirting boards.
I award the tenants $600.00 compensation for the stress and inconvenience of having to clean a premise that should have been handed over to them in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and it was not.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, which states the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
The parries have produced evidence this is an old house that needs significant repairs and maintenance, and that the landlord’s intention is to develop the property, which will include pulling down the rental premise. The development of the property was delayed due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the landlord’s appear to the tenants to be reluctant to invest money into repairs and maintenance when its intention is not to renovate but to demolish the premise. Heat pump
The tenants say the heat pump never worked properly and that at the beginning of the tenancy it turned on but the air conditioning function did not work at all and the heat pump could be only used as a fan. The heating function of the heat pump, they say, also did not work.
The tenants say that from 6 months into their tenancy the heat pump stopped working at all and the house was damp and cold. The proved they purchased heaters that they used for the duration of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the tenants never raised this issue with it and it would have had the heat pump repaired but was denied that opportunity as the issue was never raised.
The tenants say they raised this issue repeatedly at property inspections. The landlord denies this and there is no record on the property inspection reports that this was an issue raised by the tenants. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenants were unable to produce any evidence that proved they had raised this issue with the landlord. I dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Sliding door didn’t lock or open and close easily
The tenants say the ranch slider did not lock when their tenancy commenced and that it did not open and close properly. They proved this issue was raised on 12 March 2021.
The landlord accepted this was true but produced invoices that prove the sliding door wheels and lock were fixed on 17 March 2021 and flashing was installed over the downstairs door on 10 June 2021.
The tenants say the lock was changed but the sliding door still never worked properly. The landlord denies this.
The tenants have produced evidence they had raised this issue with the landlord, but the landlord has proven it addressed the issue raised in a reasonable timeframe. There was no evidence produced by the tenants to prove the tenants continued to raise this as an ongoing issue with the landlord after the invoiced repairs were carried out. I dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Ongoing roof leaks
The tenants have produced photographic and video evidence that proves they first raised the issue of the roof leaks on 10 April 2021 and that the roof continued to leak up to 8 August 2024.
The landlord produced text messages, emails and roofing repair invoices and reports. It says the leaks that continued to erupt during the tenancy were all different leaks and that each leak was remedied in a timely manner.
The evidence shows that the roof was old and in poor condition for its age and in need of replacement, rather than several patched repairs. The landlord made patch repairs as various areas of the roof leaked but failed to take steps to have the roof fully assessed and repaired so that continuous leaks did not occur.
The tenants first raised the first leaks by email on 10 April 2021 and these leaks in the back window, ranch slider and ceiling above the stairs was not investigated and remediated until 5 September 2021, after the tenants had reminded the landlord about the issue again by text on 2 September 2021.
After the leaks were repaired the roof continued to leak and the tenants say they raised these ongoing leaks at the routine property inspections. The landlord denies the tenants did so.
On 21 March 2022, the tenants woke to the stairs flooding again and the ceiling leaking quite badly in the same place as the repair that had been undertaken in 2021 and they sent an email to the landlord informing it of this issue. The landlord got an inspection report dated 22 March 2022 that states the iron roof gable to gable has screws missing leaving little holes across the roof, including the area where the leak had occurred repeatedly over the stairs. The invoice shows the roofing contractor sealed these holes and considered that it had addressed the leak raised by the tenants.
On 26 July 2022, the tenants sent a text message informing the landlord the ceiling had continued to leak over the stairs and that the ceiling in the living room had collapsed. The parties have produced evidence that proves this leak was not fixed until 21 December 2023. One roofer came on 29 July 2022, but the tenants have proven this contractor did not fix the leak. The tenants sent a follow up email to the landlord on 29 November 2023 asking when the leak will be fixed properly. The landlord produced evidence another contractor came on 19 December 2023 to assess the issue and provide it with a report. The tenants confirmed this contractor came again on 19 December 2022 and temporarily fixed the leak on 21 December 2023.
The contractor’s roofing inspection report dated 10 December 2023 raises significant issues about the roof and says “on inspection I found the area that is leaking is directly under a valley. The area where the water is supposed to enter the valley and exit the gutter system is faulty. Water is not able to leave the valley fast enough after heavy or directional rain. There is evidence of excessive water damage at the bottom of the valley (leaf guard has been installed incorrectly over the top of the valley, it has caused a giant build-up of debris at the end of the valley I have removed the leaf guard at the bottom of the valley and I have removed the debris)”. The report “recommends the valley and sheets of iron around the valley be replaced and reconstructed so that water is able to enter the valley and exit directly into the gutter as currently the valley exits onto a small area where the roof meets the cladding. Alterations and repairs will also need to be carried out on the small portion of the cladding in this area” and “after the leak is repaired, I would recommend a full roof restoration” as “there are multiple leaks including missing fasteners, splits in the iron and heavy debris across the roof. The gutters are also full of debris and not draining water properly. There will be moisture entering the home causing an unhealthy environment for the residents”.
The landlord did not have all of this work undertaken and as a result the tenants say they endured further leaks and their home continued to be damp and unhealthy.
The tenants reported the leak above the stairs and the downstairs living room ceiling again on 14 June 2024. This leak was investigated and repaired on 8 August 2024. The landlord says the tenants did not raise the leak with it again thereafter and the tenants say they gave up trying to get the issue remedied properly and chose to move out as they had endured ongoing leaks for over a year and were getting sick from living in damp and unhealthy conditions.
I am satisfied that based on the evidence provided, the tenants have proven on balance that from 10 April 2021 to 8 August 2024 (173 weeks and 5 days) they have endured leaks in the rook that have come through the ceiling above the stairs and have impacted the living room ceiling as well as other areas of the ceiling as the water has travelled across the beams and impacted the ceiling and walls in various parts of the house.
I am also satisfied that the landlord’s did not investigate and repair the leaks brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances, that many of the landlord’s attempts to remediate the leak were piecemeal, and the remediation work was temporary as the roof was clearly in bad condition for the age of the property and needed replacement rather than small ongoing repairs.
I award the following compensation to the tenant in the form of a rent rebate for the loss of amenity caused by the ongoing leaks and not having the roof leaks fully remedied in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances: a. $100 per week for the period 10 April 2021 to 5 September 2021 (21 weeks and 1 day) being a total amount of $2,114.29; and b. $100 per week for the period 26 July 2022 to 21 December 2023 (73 weeks and 2 days) being a total amount of $7,328.57; and c. $100 per week for the period 14 June 2024 to 8 August 2024 (21 weeks and 1 day) being a total amount of $785.71.
The amounts in paragraphs 52(a) to (c) total $10,228.57.
I find that the landlord’s failure to address the leaks was an intentional breach as it was made aware by its contractors that the roof was in a poor condition but did not take steps to fully remedy the poor condition of the roof to prevent ongoing leaks every time it rained in a certain direction or rained heavily. This breach led to considerable loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience to the tenant of having to continue to raise this issue and not have it fully remedied in a reasonable timeframe. An award of exemplary damages is also warranted as it is also in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed as a total amount at the end of the section of the Order that relates to all section 45(1) of the RTA breaches. Gas leaks
The tenants have proven they raised gas leaks with the landlord on 12 March 2021, 16 March 2021 and 17 March 2021 by text and the landlord never got these leaks investigated for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenants say that they continued to raise the gas leak smell downstairs with the property manager at each routine property inspection. The landlord denies this and has not recorded it in the inspection reports.
The landlord first denied ever being told about the gas leaks, then confirmed they had three invoices that proved the gas leak had been investigated, but then later could not produce those invoices to me. The landlord then confirmed it had been informed of the gas leaks and had told the tenant there was o leak and that the smell was coming from her cooking with a gas stove.
The tenants say the gas leak appeared to come from the gas fireplace that they were too scared to use so they covered it with a thick tapestry and covered it to try to prevent gas leaking into the house.
The property manger confirmed she had not sent any contractor to investigate or remedy this gas leak.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and award $3,900.00 compensation to the tenant in the form of a rent rebate for the loss of amenity caused by the gas leaks and not having the leak investigated for the duration of the tenancy at $20.00 per week for the period 10 April 2021 to 6 December 2024 (195 weeks).
I find that the landlord’s failure to address the gas leaks was an intentional breach as it was made aware by the tenants and chose to ignore the requests for this issue to be investigated and remediated. This breach led to a loss of amenity, inconvenience and the stress of not knowing if the tenants were safe from gas leaks causing damage to their health and potential fire risk if they had lit a match inside the house. An award of exemplary damages is also warranted as it is also in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed as a total amount at the end of the section of the Order that relates to all section 45(1) of the RTA breaches. Flooding downstairs
The tenants produced video and photographic evidence that Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023 cause bad leaks in the downstairs areas of the premise.
The tenants evidence showed there was significant damage to the downstairs carpeted areas and the garage had flooded and the approximately one metre high flood had damaged all of one of the tenant’s deceased parents belongings she had stored in the garage.
The landlord denied the flood had been as extensive as the tenants evidence showed and stated that the wet carpet was only in one small corner of one room in the downstairs area and that the tenants did not inform the landlord about the extent of the garage flooding and damage to the tenant’s personal belongings. These belongings are all she has of her recently deceased parents and she was very emotional showing the Tribunal the extent of the damage to the furniture and other items that have huge sentimental value to her that cannot be replaced by money. The tenant stated she has been unable to move these water damaged and mouldy belongings as it is to painful to look at them, let alone be forced to dispose of them as they are so water damaged.
The landlord stated that the tenants should have stored anything that precious to them inside the house, as there is no guarantee a garage will be fully water proof and the flood was from an unexpected weather event outside of its control. I accept the event was unforeseen but did not find the landlord’s argument compelling that the tenants should have stored all of the deceased parents’ belongings inside the house in order to ensure they were not damaged by flooding in the garage. The landlord had not informed the tenants the garage was not water proof and may flood.
I also do not accept the landlord’s oral evidence that the flooding only wet one corner of the carpet in one room. This evidence was in direct conflict with the tenants video and photographic evidence.
The parties confirmed the owner of the property purchased a wet vac and this was given to the tenants to remove the flood water from the downstairs carpeted area. The tenants confirmed they also purchased a dehumidifier as the downstairs areas became damp and smelly and they were concerned about mould in the carpet and underlay.
The parties confirmed the landlord did nothing else to clean or dry out the wet carpet and the tenants say the carpet still smells and is mouldy. The tenants say the lino that was flooded was installed straight over the concrete flooring and this was also never checked to ensure the concrete had dried out fully.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and award $3,788.57 compensation to the tenant in the form of a rent rebate for the loss of amenity caused by the flooding and not having the impact of the flooding investigated and remedied at $40.00 per week for the period 12 February 2023 to 6 December 2024 (94 weeks and 5 days).
I find that the landlord’s failure to adequately dry out and clean the wet carpet and underlay caused by the flood and to assist the tenants to dispose of the water damaged personal belongings caused by the flood was an intentional breach as it was made aware by the tenants the degree to which the flood had affected these areas of the house and garage and chose not to do more than purchase a wet vac for the tenants to use. This breach led to a loss of amenity, inconvenience and considerable stress from having to live in damp conditions and having to dispose of dead parents belongings that were water damaged beyond the point they could be salvaged. An award of exemplary damages is also warranted as it is also in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed as a total amount at the end of the section of the Order that relates to all section 45(1) of the RTA breaches. Sewage leaks
The tenants proved they reported sewage leaks on 15 May 2024 and that these sewage leaks were not remedied until 12 September 2024, after the tenants reminded the landlord of the sewage leaks on 10 September 2024, where the tenants also provided a video that shows the extent of the issue.
The landlord accepted it did not remediate the sewage leak until 12 September 2024 and but say the tenants had rubbish bags over the drain that caused the raw sewage to leak out into the yard.
The tenants say the sewage pipe was under the deck and not able to be access by the tenants. The drain that had the rubbish bags over it was for water coming off the roof and into the drainage system and the bag was on the grate and did not impact the downpipes feeding into the drainage system. Further, the tenants say the sewage leak was not connected to this drain in any way.
The property manger says the tenants only mentioned it to her once but the tenants say they mentioned it at the next property inspection after they first reported it on 15 May 2024.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the sewage leak was reported to the landlord on 15 May 2024 was not investigated or remedied until 12 September 2024. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that the breach was intentional.
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.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and award $1,371.43 compensation to the tenant in the form of a rent rebate for the loss of amenity caused by the sewage leak and not having it investigated and remedied in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances at $80.00 per week for the period 15 May 2024 to 12 September 2024 (17 weeks and 1 days).
I find that the landlord’s failure to adequately dry out and clean the wet carpet and underlay caused by the flood and to assist the tenants to dispose of the water damaged personal belongings caused by the flood was an intentional breach as it was made aware by the tenants the degree to which the flood had affected these areas of the house and garage and chose not to do more than purchase a wet vac for the tenants to use. This breach led to a loss of amenity, inconvenience and considerable stress from having to live in damp conditions and having to dispose of dead parents belongings that were water damaged beyond the point they could be salvaged. An award of exemplary damages is also warranted as it is also in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed as a total amount at the end of the section of the Order that relates to all section 45(1) of the RTA breaches. Did the landlord breach its obligation to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. This includes ensuring the house was free from dampness as required by section 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”).
The tenants have proven that the extensive roof leaks and the flooding in the downstairs and garage led to the house and garage not being free from dampness for the majority of the duration of their tenancy, being from 10 April 2021 to 6 December 2024.
I find that the landlord’s failure to provide the premise free from dampness is a breach of s45(1)(c) of the RTA and s15 of the HIR . This breach led to a loss of amenity, inconvenience and considerable stress from having to live in damp conditions and poor health outcomes for the tenants and their whanau during the tenancy. The tenants and their whanau experienced respiratory issues such as colds and asthma they had not had before and that they have not experienced since they moved to a new tenancy in September 2024.
I have already compensated the tenant for these breaches under the s45(1)(b) head of claim so cannot award any further compensation. I do however find an award of exemplary damages is warranted as it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1)(bb) of the RTA and HIR obligations to the tenants.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be addressed as a total amount at the end of the section of the Order that relates to all section 45(1) of the RTA breaches.

Did the landlord breach its healthy homes standards obligations?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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.
The tenancy commenced on 12 March 2021. The landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with all of the healthy homes standards, except the insulation standard. The insulation standard has had to be complied with from 1 July 2019.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The landlord didn’t have to comply with the heating standard until 1 July 2025.
The tenants claim the landlord breached the heating standard is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities.
The tenants could not prove they had raised the issue of the heat pump not working for the duration of the tenancy, as such, I have not considered this claim under the failure to maintain heads of claim as the tenants did not have sufficient evidence to prove that claim. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed three intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA, one of s45(1)(a) of the RTA, and one of s45(1)(c) of the RTA and one of s15 of the HIR . These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants and their whanau living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions and experiencing considerable periods of stress, inconvenience and loss of the amenities they were paying rent to enjoy.
I find the landlord has committed six unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity but putting the tenants to the time and cost of having to bring these issues to the Tribunal for resolution.
Where a party has committed any unlawful acts 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.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $5,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being 75% of the maximum penalty available. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because both parties substantially succeeded with their claims I have reimbursed both of the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017551 — Leaks at 29 Stephanie Close, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017551 — Leaks at 29 Stephanie Close, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

What rent and water rates are owing?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord breach its healthy homes standards obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

What rent and water rates are owing?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord breach its healthy homes standards obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions