Fines for landlords who don’t insulate

Landlords were being ordered to pay nearly the $4000 maximum possible level of exemplary damages for not insulating their rental properties towards the end of 2020, Tenancy Tribunal records show.

On December 12, Tolaga Bay landlord Rodger Cottle became the last property investor in 2020 to have exemplary damages awarded against him for failing to adequately insulate a property he rented out.

The $3300 exemplary damages he was ordered to pay his tenant were only just short of the $4000 maximum Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators can impose.

The deadline for properly insulating rental properties was July 1, 2019 but throughout the year tribunal adjudicators have continued to see cases in which landlords have not adequately insulated.

In a ruling by the Gisborne Tenancy Tribunal on December 12, Cottle was ordered to pay his tenant $3300 in exemplary damages for failing to insulate during the tenancy that ended in September, but as the tenant had failed to pay $6450 in rent, the landlord didn’t have to hand over any money. Adjudicator K Goldsbury found Cottle’s failure to insulate was an intentional act, saying there had been a lot of publicity during Cottle’s ownership of the house advising landlords of their insulation obligations and the timeframes.

To impose exemplary damages, a tribunal referee must be satisfied a landlord has committed an intentional act, Goldsbury said.

Goldsbury found the landlord got a quote for insulation during the tenancy, but didn’t get it done because he considered the quote to be excessive. But she accepted the landlord intended to have the place insulated. He told the tribunal he thought he had until 2021.

The exemplary damages awarded against Cottle were $300 higher than those imposed by Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator N Maplesden on December 10, on landlords Trevor and Janet Smith for failing to adequately insulate a house occupied by sharemilkers despite the tenants raising the issue inmid-2018.

Maplesden found the Smiths did not understand the property they provided for their sharemilkers was covered by the laws covering urban rental properties.

But, Maplesden ruled that ignorance was no defence, and the Smiths should have sought advice as to their legal duties.

Sharon Cullwick, executive officer of the New Zealand Property Investors Federation, said the $3300 exemplary damages Cottle was ordered to pay was more than it cost to get a home insulated. But, she said: ‘‘There’s no excuse for not having an insulated property.’’

The damages Cottle was ordered to pay were more than three times higher than those ordered against the professional property manager which was the first non-insulation case of the year to be ruled on by a Tenancy Tribunal referee.

That was an award of $1000 in January against Auckland property manager KHMG Investment Management, though in that case North Shore Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator P McKinstry found the insulation installation began in July 2019.

Cottle’s financial penalty was also higher than the one imposed in the second case of the year.

In that case, $50 compensation was ordered by the Auckland Tenancy Tribunal against Crockers Body Corporate Management to be paid to the tenant for each week she had spent in an Auckland home that was not adequately insulated in the weeks from July to October 2019. That added up to just $600.

‘‘There’s no excuse for not having an insulated property.’’ Sharon Cullwick, New Zealand Property Investors Federation