Tenant Awarded Damages for Breach of Quiet Enjoyment

OUTCOME: Allowed

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 1

[2025] NZTT 4946313

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WHANGAREI | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Tenant

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Landlord

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [COMPANY_6] must pay [NAME_2] and [NAME_4] $28,512.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Description Landlord Tenant Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain, failure to comply with healthy homes standards (drainage)

$5,400.00

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment $3,000.00 Compensation: Inference with, and damage to, belongings

$5,000.00

Costs $15,085.99 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $28,512.99 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $28,512.99

Reasons:

Background

1. The tenancy began in March 2022.

2. [NAME_1] are a retired couple in their early eighties. They were previously in a [NAME_5] home in Kamo. In early 2022, [NAME_5] offered them this

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 2

property in Hikurangi. The property had a large 3-bay garage and a large section. The garage was an attractive feature of the property for [NAME_1]. It could accommodate both of their cars. It was lockable and it had power to it, so [NAME_1] could keep her mobility scooter there.

3. The entry inspection report noted that the concrete driveway was breaking up.

4. Soon after they moved in, [NAME_1]’ Tenancy Manager informed them that [NAME_5] intended to sub-divide the property and put a new house on the back section, and that the garage would be taken away. [NAME_1] were understandably concerned about this, but the Tenancy Manager told them that the work would not take place for several years.

5. Within a few weeks of the start of the tenancy, the garage flooded in heavy rain, causing damage to [NAME_1]’s belongings.

6. In April 2022, [NAME_5] sent a letter to [NAME_1] advising them that a survey was going to take place. There was no other information about the sub- division in that letter.

7. There was no more communication to [NAME_1] about [NAME_5] plans with the property.

8. On 16 February 2023, [NAME_5] sent [NAME_1] a letter asking them to attend a meeting on 21 February. The letter stated:

We have had discussions about possible changes in your community. We would like to meet and talk to you about the plans we have for your property. I would also like to discuss and complete a “Variation to tenancy agreement” with you, as part of the development.

9. At the meeting, [NAME_1] were shown a proposed written variation to the tenancy agreement, and the subdivision plans. They signed the variation.

10. In early March 2023, contractors arrived and began demolishing the garage. [NAME_1]’ cars and personal belongings were moved to the ‘back half’ of the garage.

11. A relocatable house was brought on to the back section in early April.

12. The remainder of the garage was demolished in late May.

13. [NAME_1] had an accident on the driveway with her scooter due to the uneven surface. She broke her shoulder, and the scooter was damaged. [NAME_1] had another fall on the driveway on a different occasion and injured her other shoulder. [NAME_5] Tenancy Manager also fell on the driveway.

14. The subdivision was completed in October 2023.

15. [NAME_1] filed this application on 27 July 2024. The application sought compensation and exemplary damage for breach of quiet enjoyment, and for damage to their belongings.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 3

16. After the first hearing in October 2024, [NAME_1] amended their application to include compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain (driveway, garage flooding) and legal costs.

17. The second hearing took place in May 2025.

Quiet enjoyment

Law

18. Tenants are entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord.1 Premises includes any part of the premises including land and appurtenances.2

19. A tenancy agreement can be varied, in writing, with the consent of both the landlord and the tenant.3

Discussion

20. The garage and the back section were part of the premises.

21. There was nothing in the tenancy agreement, and nothing in tenancy law generally, that gave [NAME_5] the power to take away part of the premises.

22. [NAME_5] legal power to do this depends entirely on the variation that [NAME_1] signed on 21 February 2023.

23. At the first hearing on 16 October 2024, [NAME_5] representative [NAME_7] stated that there were multiple meetings with [NAME_1] between March 2022 and February 2023 and that [NAME_1] were fully informed of [NAME_5] plans with the property. I noted this in my adjournment order dated 30 October 2024. Part of the reason for the adjournment was to allow [NAME_5] the opportunity to gather and provide evidence of those meetings.

24. At the second hearing on 9 May 2025, [NAME_5] acknowledged that there is no record of any such meetings or any communication with [NAME_1] about the property development between March 2022 and February 2023, apart from a letter on 7 April 2022 informing [NAME_1] that a survey was going to take place. The letter stated “the survey will be used to help us decide what we can build on the land in the future so some more people can live in quality homes in this community” but it contained no other information about [NAME_5] plans.

25. [NAME_8] was [NAME_5] Customer Liaison for the project. [NAME_8] gave evidence at the 9 May hearing. [NAME_8] said that he began in that role in

1 Section 39(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 2 RTA 3 Section 13B(1) RTA

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 4

January 2023. He explained that his role was to act as liaison between the contractors and the tenants.

26. [NAME_8] was at the meeting with [NAME_1] on 21 February 2023. He brought the variation for [NAME_1] to sign, and the sub-division plans. [NAME_8] said that going into that meeting he believed that [NAME_1] were fully aware of the sub- division. In his written statement he states that he “visited [NAME_1] to confirm the Infill Project was going to start and contactors would be onsite from 1 March […] We also got the Variation to Tenancy Agreement signed”.

27. In fact, as noted above, [NAME_1] were not aware of the project apart from a vague comment near the start of their tenancy that [NAME_5] may develop the property some time in the future.

28. [NAME_1] described their experience of that meeting as follows:

They produced plans showing the subdivision by which legally we had been cut off from the back part of the land we had taken under the Tenancy Agreement. We didn’t know that we had any rights in the matter. I, [NAME_1], asked if the document that was produced for us to sign varying our Tenancy Agreement from the year before was something that we needed a lawyer to look at. We were told no, that it was “just a variation”. […]

Thinking back, that we agreed to it on the day was down to their self- importance, their confidence in their powers (all the documents already prepared), our acceptance that they had the power, and that we were powerless. They took advantage of us. We don’t say we didn’t understand it. We were overpowered. We thought we couldn’t refuse them.

29. [NAME_8] denied the allegation that [NAME_1] asked whether they should have a lawyer look at the variation and that he said it was not necessary.

30. I am satisfied that:

[NAME_5] failed to follow its own process by not meeting with [NAME_1] and providing them with information about the project, including the timing of it and the implications for [NAME_1] (in particular, the loss of the garage).

b. At the meeting on 21 February 2023 [NAME_8] mistakenly understood that those prior meetings had taken place. He assumed that [NAME_1] knew about the project and its implications and that they had several months’ worth of opportunity to think about it and take advice about it. He was there merely to “confirm the In Fill project was going to start” and to formalise the paperwork.

c. There was an imbalance of power and knowledge at that meeting. [NAME_1] did not know what was “normal” and that what was happening was not normal. They did not know that they could question or challenge what was put in front of them, or ask for more time to consider it.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 5

d. This does not mean that their consent to the variation is vitiated. [NAME_1] are adults with full capacity, able to make decisions and enter into binding agreements. There is in fact another [NAME_5] house where [NAME_1]’ back section and garage used to be. That cannot be undone. However, in my view [NAME_1]’ consent was tainted. It was obtained through a flawed process. It was not fully informed. A variation of the magnitude that [NAME_5] were proposing requires more than one brief meeting to consider.

e. The storage shed that [NAME_5] provided to [NAME_1] after the subdivision is a lesser amenity than the original garage. It is substantially smaller. It cannot accommodate their vehicles. There is no power supply to it, so [NAME_1] cannot safely store and charge her mobility scooter in it.

31. My finding is that [NAME_5] actions amounted to an unlawful interference with [NAME_1]’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

32. I address the issue of damages below.

Tenants’ belongings in garage

33. The variation states that

1. On the effective date vacant possession of the part of the section indicated in the attached drawings and marked as ‘A’ will be relinquished to [NAME_5]. [NAME_5] hereby consent to the relinquishment.

2. From the effective date the boundaries of the Tenant’s tenancy are as indicated in the attached drawings and marked ’B’.

[…]

8. This Variation to the Tenancy Agreement will take effect on the effective date. The effective date is the day two weeks after the day on which [NAME_5] informs the Tenant in writing that it intends to proceed with the development.

34. The variation was signed on 21 February 2023. I was not provided with a copy of any letter from [NAME_5] to the tenants stating that it intends to proceed with the development.

35. On 1 March 2023, contractors arrived on site and began preparation work, including installing safety fencing.

36. The contractors moved [NAME_1]’ belongings in the garage into the back half of the garage. The intention was that the contractors would build two sheds for [NAME_1] to move their belongings into.

37. Part of the garage was demolished and removed on or around 6–8 March. This included concrete cutting work. All of [NAME_1]’s belongings and their two vehicles were still in the garage at that time. The remaining part of the garage

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 6

(the equivalent of one bay) was enclosed. [NAME_1]’s belongings remained there. The removal of part of the garage was sufficient to allow access for the re-locatable home.

38. In mid-late March, [NAME_5] provided the first storage shed, the smaller of the two that [NAME_5] intended to provide. The shed was put on a part of the property that was vulnerable to flooding. With the assistance of a neighbour, [NAME_1] shifted the shed to higher ground.

39. [NAME_1] transferred some of their belongings from the remaining part of the garage into this first shed, but it was too small to take everything.

40. The house was delivered to the new site on 3 or 5 April (the parties disagree about the date).

41. On 30 May, the second, larger, storage shed was completed. [NAME_5] contractors moved some of [NAME_1]’ remaining belongings into the shed. This was done without [NAME_1]’ knowledge or consent. The contractors cut the remainder of the concrete in the last part of the garage.

42. Demolition work finished on a Friday afternoon with one wall left standing in the garage. [NAME_1] provided a photograph of this. Some of their belongings are still there, in the now essentially non-existent “garage”. Over that weekend there was rain and strong wind, and the remaining wall fell down onto their belongings.

43. [NAME_1] said that they attempted to go into the garage area to retrieve or protect their belongings, but they were told that it was a construction site and they were not allowed to enter without protective equipment.

44. [NAME_1] said that during the garage removal processes in March and May:

a. Some of their belongings were damaged by being left out in the rain.

b. Some of their belongings were damaged by concrete dust, including both their vehicles.

c. Some of their belongings were damaged by careless handling by the contractors.

d. Some of their belongings went missing.

e. The contractors handled, moved, and used their belongings without their consent. They used their ladder and tools. They took items out of plastic boxes and put them back in others. They took [NAME_1]’s mobility scooter for a ‘joy ride’.

45. Landlords or their contractors have no legal right to handle tenant’s belongings.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 7

46. The variation to the tenancy agreement “relinquished” [NAME_1]’s right to part of the premises including the garage, but it gave [NAME_5] no additional rights in respect of [NAME_1]’s belongings in the garage.

47. [NAME_1] provided a “Schedule of damaged / lost / destroyed items”. There are 26 types of items on the list, not including the vehicles. There are multiples of some of the types of items (chairs, pots, mats, garden ornaments, etc.).

48. The total value listed on the Schedule is $9,732.82.

49. For the cars, [NAME_1] paid the insurance excess for each vehicle ($400.00). The rest of the repair cost was paid by their insurer.

50. The Tenancy Tribunal sometimes deals with tenant claims for damage to personal belongings, often in the context of a flood in the property. Claims of this type are difficult to evidence. It is hard for tenants to prove that they owned a particular item, and that it was damaged in the way that they allege. It is hard for tenants to prove the value of the item.

51. That is the case here. Most of the claim for damaged / lost / destroyed items is not well evidenced. There is evidence in support of some parts of the claim, in particular the items damaged by concrete dust.

52. [NAME_1] provided copies of the estimates for the repairs to the vehicles and some photographs of the vehicles. The photographs and the description of the work in the estimates are consistent with [NAME_1]’s argument that the vehicles were damaged by concrete dust. They provided a copy of a repair assessment on [NAME_1]’s sewing machine (concluding that it is not economic to repair and it has a replacement value of $1,299.00) but the assessment does not describe the nature of the damage to the machine.

53. On the evidence available to me I am satisfied that:

[NAME_5] failed to inform [NAME_1] about their plans before 21 February 2023.

b. [NAME_5] failed to provide adequate alternative storage for the belongings before the demolition began.

c. This lack of planning and foresight by [NAME_5] meant that [NAME_1]’s belongings remained in the garage and were an obstruction and inconvenience for their contractors. This does not excuse in any way the way that the contractors dealt with [NAME_1]’s property, but it is a situation that could have been avoided with better communication and planning on [NAME_5] part.

d. [NAME_5] contractors handled [NAME_1]’s belongings without consent on multiple occasions. Each instance of this was a trespass to goods.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 8

e. Beyond just handling the belongings, [NAME_5] contractors treated them with disregard. They helped themselves to various items. They left them out in the rain. They carried out concrete cutting knowing that the belongings would be exposed to cement dust.

54. [NAME_1] are entitled to compensation for the unlawful interference with, and damage to, their personal property.

55. Damages are addressed below.

Maintenance / healthy homes

56. Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.4

57. Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards.5

58. The healthy homes standard for moisture ingress and drainage requires that the property must have efficient drainage for the removal of storm water.

59. A breach of these duties is an unlawful act.6

60. [NAME_5] did not dispute that:

a. The driveway was not in a reasonable state of repair at the start of the tenancy. This was not remedied until after the subdivision was completed.

b. The original garage was prone to flooding and it did flood during [NAME_1]’ tenancy.

61. [NAME_5] failed to meet its maintenance obligation in respect of the driveway.

62. [NAME_5] failed to meet the healthy homes standard for drainage.

63. Damages are addressed below.

Damages

Interference with quiet enjoyment

64. A breach of this duty is not an unlawful act.7 I cannot consider exemplary damages.

65. I will make an award of compensation for loss of amenity.

66. [NAME_5] took away part of the premises from the tenants and provided them with no reduction in rent or any other sort of compensation. [NAME_5] rely on

4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 5 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 6 Section 45(1A) RTA 7 Section 38(1) RTA

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 9

the fact that the tenants consented. I consider that the consent was tainted and insufficient given that it was obtained through flawed process and (even if inadvertently) through [NAME_5] position of power over [NAME_1].

67. [NAME_1] now have less than they were promised in the tenancy agreement, especially in respect of the garage. As noted above, they now have a storage shed instead of a three-bay garage. The shed cannot accommodate their cars and it does not have power to it.

68. The loss of the large back section is less of a detriment to [NAME_1]. Although it was pleasant enough, it was too big for [NAME_1] to maintain themselves and they paid a contractor to mow it.

69. It is also important to note that [NAME_1] had (and have) no objections to using that land for housing. They recognise the need for housing and have no concerns about having a new neighbour.

70. Assessment of an appropriate amount of compensation is complex. I have had regard to the following considerations:

a. It would be impractical and unjust to assess an on-going and indefinite rent reduction based on the loss of use of the garage.

b. [NAME_1] do not pay market rent for the premises. At the start of the tenancy the market rent was $390 per week and [NAME_1] paid $168 per week.

c. Calculation of a lump sum compensation must begin with consideration of the loss of amenity associated with the removal of the garage, but it must be capped at an appropriate amount, and it must also take into account the wider context of the way that [NAME_5] went about taking away part of the premises from [NAME_1].

71. Weighing these considerations, I will award compensation of $3,000.00.

Belongings

72. With the assistance of [NAME_9], [NAME_1] provided clear, detailed, and persuasive submissions to the Tribunal. On more than one occasion, their recollection of certain events, which was initially disputed by [NAME_5], proved to be correct.

73. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of their schedule of damaged / lost / destroyed items.

74. However, I have noted the very limited evidence in support of the claim. That is not a criticism of [NAME_1], it is a common difficulty with claims of this type.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 10

75. There is sufficient evidence to prove (to the standard of “more likely than not”) [NAME_1]’ claim for concrete dust damage to their vehicles. The cost to them for the repair of that damage was $800.00.

76. In terms of the other specific claims for damaged / missing chattels I accept that [NAME_5] contractors caused damage to [NAME_1]’ property by handling them carelessly, exposing them to concrete dust, allowing them to be exposed to the elements, and taking or losing them without consent. However, the exact scope and value of that damage is not proven by independent evidence.

77. The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine disputes according to the substantial merits and justice of the case.8 It would be unjust to limit [NAME_1]’ claim to the specific proven loss of $800.

78. I will make an award of general damages that takes into account:

a. The virtual certainty that [NAME_5] contractors damaged a substantial amount of [NAME_1]’ belongings.

b. The fact that [NAME_1]’ schedule is an honest and good faith document.

c. The stress and inconvenience caused to [NAME_1] not only by the loss of their belongings, but in the way that [NAME_5] contractor treated their property with disregard.

79. Having regard to those considerations, I will award $5,000.00.

Maintenance and healthy homes

80. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failure to comply with the healthy homes standards are unlawful acts.

81. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.

82. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to:9

a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and

b. The effect of the unlawful act; and

c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and

d. The public interest.

8 Section 85(2) RTA 9 Section 109 RTA

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 11

83. Where there is more than one proven unlawful act under the same section of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may only make one award of exemplary damages.10

84. In this instance:

[NAME_5] was aware of the problems with the driveway and with flooding in the garage. [NAME_5] elected not to address them. [NAME_5] reasoning was that the garage was going to be removed and the driveway replaced when the subdivision was done.

b. The effect of [NAME_5] failure to maintain the driveway was that [NAME_1] seriously injured herself twice in falls / accidents on the driveway, and her scooter was damaged beyond repair.

c. The effect of [NAME_5] failure to meet the healthy homes standard for drainage was that the garage flooded, causing damage to [NAME_1]’s property. Some of this loss was covered by [NAME_1]’ insurers. After that, [NAME_1] were forced to use pallets to keep their belongings off the floor, and they worried about their belongings every time there was heavy rain.

d. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their legal duty to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair and ensure that the stormwater drainage is adequate. It is also appropriate to hold [NAME_5] to a high standard, given that they frequently have vulnerable tenants ([NAME_1] are in their eighties). [NAME_5] themselves promise a high standard of care for their tenants, beyond the standard that the law provides. To quote from a letter that [NAME_5] wrote to [NAME_1] in June 2022:

Our goal is for you to feel safe, secure and supported in your home, connected to your community and feel in control over your life and well being.

If these are not empty words, they are a standard by which [NAME_5] is inviting itself to be judged.

85. Having regard to these factors, and to the fact that there are two proven (and substantial) breaches, I will award exemplary damages of $5,400.00 (three- quarters of the maximum).

Summary

86. The total amount of damages is $13,400.00.

10 Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Ltd [2024] NZDC 27583

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 12

Costs

Claim

87. The claim seeks payment of the [NAME_3]’s legal costs. [NAME_1] engaged [NAME_9] ([NAME_11]). [NAME_9] assisted [NAME_1] thoughout the process, from filing the Tenancy Tribunal application to attending the three hearings.

88. The total legal costs were $20,114.65.

Law

89. Where a party is represented by counsel, the Tenancy Tribunal may award reasonable costs in association with the proceedings.11

90. Full indemnity costs cannot be claimed as of right in the Tenancy Tribunal.

91. In Wing On So v Body Corporate 34920012 the District Court clarified the approach that the Tribunal should take to costs under section 103(2)(b) RTA. Judge Clark said that:

the Tribunal should avoid an approach which starts with the position of what the actual costs are when indemnity costs cannot be claimed as of right. Rather, the approach should be an objective assessment of what steps had to be undertaken for the successful party to achieve the result they have, and in doing so applying the factors listed in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, using the scale costs regime as a guideline. This approach does allow flexibility and does not exclude a claim for close to indemnity costs if, in the context of what is “reasonable”, such costs can be justified.13

92. The “factors listed in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand” that His Honour refers to are:

An award of costs for counsel are usually a reasonable contribution to legal costs, not full costs. The usual range is 40 to 70 per cent of actual costs and factors to consider include the party's success, length of hearing, amount involved, importance of the issues, complexity, urgency, time for effective preparation, any unnecessary steps, arguments without substance, abuse of process, poor presentation, where the hearing time was lengthened by parties conduct and for guidance purposes, the District Court scale of costs.14

Discussion

11 Section 103(2)(b) RTA 12 [2024] NZDC 9439 13 At para 109 14 [NAME_13] Tenancy Law in New Zealand, Thomson Reuters [2018] at 9.23

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 13

93. [NAME_9] provided submissions about costs. [NAME_9] said that:

a. [NAME_1] are elderly, extremely stressed, and needy in terms of explanation of the legal framing of the claim.

b. He was initially hopeful of a reasonable settlement from [NAME_5] but [NAME_5] did not act reasonably and were “dismissive” of [NAME_1].

c. One of the reasons for the adjournment of the first hearing was that [NAME_5] representative was adamant that there had been multiple meetings between [NAME_5] and [NAME_1] about the subdivision before February 2023. At the second hearing, [NAME_5] acknowledged that there is no record of any such meetings.

d. [NAME_5] engaged in “inescapably egregious conduct”.

94. [NAME_9] noted that:

a. He did not charge all the hours that he worked on the file.

b. Some of the work in the initial stages was done by a junior lawyer at [NAME_11]. When that person left the firm [NAME_9] continued the work himself because “it would have been unfair to [[NAME_1]] and probably not cost efficient to have to meet and develop trust in a third member of this firm”. The charge out rate of the junior lawyer was $180 plus GST / hour. [NAME_9]’s charge out rate is $440 plus GST / hour.

95. [NAME_5] did not provide any submissions about costs.

96. In considering an appropriate award of costs I have had regard to:

a. [NAME_1]’s success in the claim.

b. Scale costs on a Schedule 2b basis. There were three defended hearings at the Tribunal. A significant amount of preparation was required given the range of tenancy issues and the need for extensive guidance for [NAME_1].

c. Access to justice. I accept [NAME_9]’s comment that [NAME_1] could not have brought this matter to the Tribunal without considerable assistance.

d. [NAME_5] approach to the proceedings, for example:

i. At times, [NAME_5] representatives did not have complete or accurate information.

ii. There was a considerable delay between the first and second hearing (not due to the parties). At the second hearing on 4 April 2025, [NAME_5] representative immediately requested an adjournment to have the opportunity to negotiate a settlement with

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 14

[NAME_1]. [NAME_9] reluctantly agreed to the adjournment, but he noted that [NAME_5] had ample opportunity to negotiate before the first hearing in October 2024 or during the five and a half months after that hearing. In his submission for the third hearing, [NAME_9] states that he provided an updated statement of costs to [NAME_5] at their request for the negotiation, and “the only response was to the effect: see you in court”. [NAME_9]’s costs relating to preparing for and attending the third hearing were $3,036.00.

iii. Despite the clear and obvious failures in respect of:

providing information to [NAME_1] about the subdivision and obtaining their informed consent;

facilitating / ensuring the safe removal of [NAME_1] property from the garage;

overseeing the actions of their contractors;

maintaining the driveway in a safe and useable condition;

ensuring that the premises met the healthy homes standards;

[NAME_5] continued to defend the claim by critiquing relatively minor aspects of the tenants’ claim for damages. For instance, [NAME_5] seemed very fixated with the claim for damage to [NAME_1]’ vehicles and for concrete dust damage to their sewing machine.

e. It appears that [NAME_9] has been [NAME_1]’s lawyer for a long time, and they have a good relationship with him. It is understandable why they wanted [NAME_9] to assist them. However, [NAME_9] is a very experienced civil litigator, and a director at [NAME_11]. His charge out rate reflects that standing and experience. The Tenancy Tribunal has informal processes that allow for (usually) unrepresented parties. Adjudicators are trained to hear from parties who have no understanding of legal processes or tenancy law. Also, Tenancy Services is available to landlords and tenants to give free advice about tenancy matters and about the Tenancy Tribunal. [NAME_1] have relied entirely on [NAME_9] throughout the process. In his costs submission [NAME_9] notes that “the actual cost of doing this work would be way beyond the capacity of [NAME_1], but I was challenged by the injustice”, and he also makes this comment “my firm was prepared to work on the basis that might end up having to be pro bono”.

97. My finding is that it is appropriate to make an award above the “usual” 40-70% range having regard to the factors detailed above. I will award costs of $15,085.99, which is 75% of the proven legal costs.

Summary, filing fee

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 15

98. The tenants have been successful in this application, and I will also award the tenants the filing fee of $27.00.15

99. The claims for breach of quiet enjoyment, interference with (and damage to) belongings, failure to maintain, and failure to comply with the healthy homes standard for drainage are proven.

100. The tenants are entitled to costs. 101. The damages that I have awarded do not, and are not intended to, reflect the

extent of the distress and inconvenience that [NAME_1] experienced due to the events discussed above. In simple terms, it has been a nightmare for them. [NAME_1] said that the main reason for their application was to vindicate their experience – to show that [NAME_5] failings caused them significant and unnecessary suffering. Without reservation, I give them that vindication. Unfortunately, in this instance [NAME_5] fell well short of its aim to make [NAME_1] feel “safe, secure and supported” in their home. [NAME_1] hope that no-one else has to go through what they have gone through. I also endorse that sentiment.

N Blake

04 June 2025

15 Section 102(4)(a) RTA

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 16

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 4946313 17

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons: