What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4335280 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4335280?

Compensation: interference reasonabl…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Reduction: $3,220.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4335280?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4335280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9329637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4335280 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4335280?

Compensation: interference reasonabl…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Reduction: $3,220.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4335280?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4335280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9329637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Regatta Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4335280 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4335280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Building Act	$2,400.00	Building Act
Compensation: rent reduction	$3,220.00	rent reduction
Compensation: interference reasonable privacy	$150.00	interference reasonable privacy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
Eason Shen must pay [the tenant] $5,790.44 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below: DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Building Act$2,400.00 Compensation: rent reduction$3,220.00 Compensation: interference reasonable privacy$150.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$5,790.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to comply with relevant enactments in relation to buildings, health, and safety, interfered with her electricity supply, and interfered with her peace and privacy. She seeks exemplary damages and compensation.
Each of the tenant’s claims is considered in turn.

Did the landlord fail to comply with building regulations?

Under s 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breach of that requirement is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The landlord turned what was originally a single residential house into two separate household units by converting what was originally a rumpus room into a studio apartment. The studio apartment became the premises that the tenant rented.
The conversion work was done without applying to the Council for a code compliance certificate for change of use. That breached s 115 of the Building Act 2004 which provides: 115 Code compliance requirements: change of use An owner of a building must not change the use of the building,— (a) in a case where the change involves the incorporation in the building of 1 or more household units where household units did not exist before, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use, will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the building code in all respects...
During the tenancy, the Council became aware of the situation and inspected the premises. Preliminary investigations indicated the premises did not comply with the building code’s requirements for fireproofing, fire escape and waterproofing for a separate household unit.
The tenancy ended on 31 March 2021 due to the compliance problems. The landlord no longer rents the studio out as a separate household unit.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
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 accept the landlord did not understand the law. However, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The landlord acted intentionally in letting out the premises even if it was in ignorance of the law. The tenant was living in premises that were not as safe as they should have been. She had to move out because they were unlawful. It is the tenant’s interest to make an order for exemplary damages. The public interest calls for an order to be made to deter landlords from similar breaches.
This is the first time the landlord has breached the Act in this way. I accept that he sincerely regrets the breach.
I set exemplary damages at $2,400.00, which is one-third of the maximum.
The landlord appropriately reduced the rent by 20 per cent for the last two weeks of the tenancy. I apply that discount to the first 46 weeks of the tenancy as well. The Tribunal orders rent reduction under s 78A(4)(a)(ii) of the RTA of $3,220.00. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s electricity supply?
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See s 45(2) of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant unexpectedly lost power for a-day-and-a-half on 7-8 August 2020.
However, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the power was lost because the upstairs tenant moved out and cancelled their power supply. It so happened that the tenant’s downstairs unit shared the same meter, so the cancellation affected her power supply.
The landlord contacted an electricity supplier to reconnect the power as soon as he found out what had happened.
I do not find it proven that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s supply of electricity. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace and privacy?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Around the time that the Council was investigating the premises compliance issues, the landlord went to the premises at about 10.00pm and knocked on the tenant’s door. The tenant says the landlord tried to open the door, but the landlord denies that.
I accept the landlord’s evidence he did not try to open the door. Nonetheless, he accepts he did knock on the tenant’s door at about 10:00pm at night.
That was not an appropriate time to go onto at tenant’s premises. I accept the tenant’s evidence that it was unsettling and unpleasant.
I find it proven that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy.
The Tribunal orders $150.00 compensation for the interference. Application fee
Because the tenant has been wholly successful in her claim, the Tribunal must order that the landlord pay the tenant the filing fee paid for the application. Non-publication
Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has wholly succeeded in the proceedings. The Tribunal does not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4335280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Building Act	$2,400.00	Building Act
Compensation: rent reduction	$3,220.00	rent reduction
Compensation: interference reasonable privacy	$150.00	interference reasonable privacy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
Eason Shen must pay [the tenant] $5,790.44 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below: DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Building Act$2,400.00 Compensation: rent reduction$3,220.00 Compensation: interference reasonable privacy$150.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$5,790.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to comply with relevant enactments in relation to buildings, health, and safety, interfered with her electricity supply, and interfered with her peace and privacy. She seeks exemplary damages and compensation.
Each of the tenant’s claims is considered in turn.

Did the landlord fail to comply with building regulations?

Under s 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breach of that requirement is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The landlord turned what was originally a single residential house into two separate household units by converting what was originally a rumpus room into a studio apartment. The studio apartment became the premises that the tenant rented.
The conversion work was done without applying to the Council for a code compliance certificate for change of use. That breached s 115 of the Building Act 2004 which provides: 115 Code compliance requirements: change of use An owner of a building must not change the use of the building,— (a) in a case where the change involves the incorporation in the building of 1 or more household units where household units did not exist before, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use, will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the building code in all respects...
During the tenancy, the Council became aware of the situation and inspected the premises. Preliminary investigations indicated the premises did not comply with the building code’s requirements for fireproofing, fire escape and waterproofing for a separate household unit.
The tenancy ended on 31 March 2021 due to the compliance problems. The landlord no longer rents the studio out as a separate household unit.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
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 accept the landlord did not understand the law. However, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The landlord acted intentionally in letting out the premises even if it was in ignorance of the law. The tenant was living in premises that were not as safe as they should have been. She had to move out because they were unlawful. It is the tenant’s interest to make an order for exemplary damages. The public interest calls for an order to be made to deter landlords from similar breaches.
This is the first time the landlord has breached the Act in this way. I accept that he sincerely regrets the breach.
I set exemplary damages at $2,400.00, which is one-third of the maximum.
The landlord appropriately reduced the rent by 20 per cent for the last two weeks of the tenancy. I apply that discount to the first 46 weeks of the tenancy as well. The Tribunal orders rent reduction under s 78A(4)(a)(ii) of the RTA of $3,220.00. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s electricity supply?
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See s 45(2) of the RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant unexpectedly lost power for a-day-and-a-half on 7-8 August 2020.
However, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the power was lost because the upstairs tenant moved out and cancelled their power supply. It so happened that the tenant’s downstairs unit shared the same meter, so the cancellation affected her power supply.
The landlord contacted an electricity supplier to reconnect the power as soon as he found out what had happened.
I do not find it proven that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s supply of electricity. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace and privacy?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Around the time that the Council was investigating the premises compliance issues, the landlord went to the premises at about 10.00pm and knocked on the tenant’s door. The tenant says the landlord tried to open the door, but the landlord denies that.
I accept the landlord’s evidence he did not try to open the door. Nonetheless, he accepts he did knock on the tenant’s door at about 10:00pm at night.
That was not an appropriate time to go onto at tenant’s premises. I accept the tenant’s evidence that it was unsettling and unpleasant.
I find it proven that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy.
The Tribunal orders $150.00 compensation for the interference. Application fee
Because the tenant has been wholly successful in her claim, the Tribunal must order that the landlord pay the tenant the filing fee paid for the application. Non-publication
Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has wholly succeeded in the proceedings. The Tribunal does not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4335280 — Exemplary damages at 1 Regatta Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4335280 — Exemplary damages at 1 Regatta Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with building regulations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with building regulations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions