What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4386161 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] has applied for costs relating to his claim in the Tribunal. [The

How much money was awarded in case 4386161?

Legal Costs: $12,329.91 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4386161?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4386161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9502691-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4386161 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] has applied for costs relating to his claim in the Tribunal. [The

How much money was awarded in case 4386161?

Legal Costs: $12,329.91 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4386161?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4386161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9502691-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4386161 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4386161 — net $16,099.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
ntative/s] has provided details of the costs relevant to the claim. I understand legal costs and disbursements amount to	$12,329.91	ntative/s] has provided details of the costs relevant to the claim. I understand legal costs and disbursements amount to
Net award	$16,099.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$16,099.00

Order

The claim for costs is dismissed. The Parties’ submissions regarding costs

[The tenant/s] has applied for costs relating to his claim in the Tribunal. [The tenant/s] was represented by counsel, [The tenant’s representative/s]. Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances where the Tribunal can award costs. Sections 102(2) and (3) provide that that where any of the parties is represented by counsel, the Tribunal may order a party to pay the reasonable costs of another party.
Following the Tribunal’s decision regarding [The tenant/s]’s application, the parties made written submissions regarding costs. Their submissions include legal cases from which considerations about costs have been distilled. I have considered those cases and the points raised in the parties’ submissions.
[The tenant’s representative/s] has provided details of the costs relevant to the claim. I understand legal costs and disbursements amount to $12,329.91. In paragraph 24 of [The tenant’s representative/s]’s submission he states, ‘For these

Reasons

it is submitted that an award of costs of $7,200.00 is fair and reasonable in the circumstances’.

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities’ (Kāinga Ora) submission is that there are insufficient grounds for it to have to pay [The tenant/s]’s costs. Kāinga Ora was not represented by counsel at the hearing.
The normal position is that an unsuccessful party may be ordered to contribute to the costs of the successful party. The relevant factors to be considered are set out in decisions such as David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms & Engineering Ltd (1988) PRNZ
The High Court outlined several relevant factors in assessing costs: a. the length of the hearing, b. the amount of money involved, c. the importance of the issues d. the legal and factual complexities, e. the amount of time required for effective preparation, f. the likely or actual costs incurred.
Other factors that may be relevant include: the conduct of the parties, the degree of success, whether unnecessary steps or technical points were taken, and whether arguments lacked substance.
[The tenant’s representative/s] set out his reasons why costs should be ordered using the factors above. In summary he refers to: a. The hearings were for two full days plus a case conference and a mediation, b. The claim against Kāinga Ora was for $16,099.00, c. The issues were critically important to [The tenant/s] and Kāinga Ora lacked insight into the harm [The tenant/s] had experienced, d. There were eleven matters being claimed, they were factually complex and required a review of a wide range of Tribunal orders, e. There was a significant amount of time needed for preparation of the case including time spent with [The tenant/s], f. [The tenant/s] enjoyed partial success in the case regarding compensation claims and work orders.
Kāinga Ora’s response includes the following: a. [The tenant/s] should not be entitled to costs for a largely unsuccessful claim (consistent with the well-established principle that costs are generally only awarded where a party was successful). Only 2 of the 11 claims made were partially successful and of the $16,099.00 sought, the total amount awarded was only $620.44. b. While [The tenant/s]’s application was made up of more than 11 different claims, the nature of the issues involved were not legally or factually complex such that Kāinga Ora did not consider that it needed to be represented by counsel. c. [The tenant/s] was well placed to represent himself because in the hearings he engaged with the issues, speaking to both the Kāinga Ora representative and the Adjudicator about the matters before the Tribunal. d. The involvement of legal counsel in this matter unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding because counsel for [The tenant/s] advancing unmeritorious claims that were not supported by the facts, evidence, or the law, including for example: i. an exemplary damages claim was made which was out of time and related to standards that did not yet apply (see paragraph 18 of the Order); ii. the Tribunal distinguished the precedents relied on by [The tenant/s]’s counsel (see paragraph 43 of the Order) iii. compensation and reimbursement were claimed for the water quality and mould reports that were provided to the Tribunal despite those reports not supporting the claims made (See paragraphs 87- 93 of the Order) iv. the Tenant’s submissions refer to human rights law as being relevant, yet such matters are outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and v. the claims made against Kāinga Ora, and the issues put before the Tribunal, were largely unsupported by the facts, evidence and law.
Kāinga Ora submitted that hearings were unnecessary because Kāinga Ora had tried to work with [The tenant/s] regarding his complaints, had offered him opportunity to relocate to another property in [redacted] prior to his Tribunal application. Kāinga Ora made a without prejudice offer to [The tenant/s] of $500.00 to resolve matters before Tribunal hearings began. Reasons for dismissing the claim for costs.
As has been noted in the parties’ submissions above, [The tenant/s] was successful in two of the eleven claims made in his application. He was awarded $200.00 compensation for inconvenience for a ceiling leak and $400.00 compensation for Kāinga Ora’s failure to permit a lock change. It is important to evaluate whether representation was necessary for those claims to be adequately dealt with in the Tribunal. Whether representation was necessary regarding the claim for compensation for a leaking ceiling.
The leak from the upstairs hot water cylinder into [The tenant/s]’s unit happened in November 2019. The facts were simple. The only matters requiring a decision were (i) the period of time that water was leaking into [The tenant/s]’s unit and (ii) whether Kāinga Ora had some responsibility for that inconvenience to [The tenant/s].
Counsel’s submissions and evidence did not assist with a determination about how long the leak continued. That was determined by Kāinga Ora’s evidence. As to Kāinga Ora’s responsibility for the inconvenience, the answer came from a question I asked, not a question asked by counsel. An adjudicator can work with parties to fully investigate any claim, asking questions to get a complete picture of events. I asked the question whether the contractor released water that was trapped in the ceiling space. If it had been, water would not have dripped into [The tenant/s]’s unit for two days. It was the failure to release trapped water that caused the ongoing inconvenience for [The tenant/s] and led to me ordering compensation. Counsel was not necessary to deal with that part of the claim.
I have considered whether that ceiling leak claim was a complex matter. The material presented about the ceiling leak was [The tenant/s]’s recollection of events and the series of emails following the event. There was no legal research necessary. The claim required a straightforward application of RTA provisions. [The tenant/s]’s involvement in discussing this matter during the hearings confirmed for me that he could easily have presented the material relevant to this claim without the need for counsel. It was not a complex matter.
I am satisfied that whether counsel was representing [The tenant/s] or not in this matter, the outcome would have been the same. Compensation would have been ordered for [The tenant/s]. Therefore, I do not consider it reasonable that Kāinga Ora should be ordered to pay costs for counsel regarding the ceiling leak claim. The importance of counsel regarding compensation for the failure to permit a change to a door lock.
This claim originates from a request by [The tenant/s] to Kāinga Ora in February 2019. Again, the facts were simple. The only real difficulty was that [The tenant/s] waited three years to bring his claim, thereby making it more difficult to establish what lock had been changed and when. As I stated in my order; If this claim had been made in 2019 the Tribunal could have made a work order about locks and compensation would not have been necessary.
The only matter to be determined was whether it was reasonable for the landlord to decline [The tenant/s]’s request to arrange and pay for a more secure door lock.
The lock change issue was not complex matter. The evidence was the series of emails that showed [The tenant/s]’s request and Kāinga Ora’s responses, including one email that led him to believe his request for a more secure lock was being considered. This evidence was all that was needed. It was evidence that could have as easily been presented by [The tenant/s]. There was no legal research necessary. The work order regarding the locks was a logical outcome of my decision that [The tenant/s] should be able to have more secure locks.
I am satisfied that legal representation was unnecessary to adequately deal with the lock issue. I do not consider it reasonable to order Kāinga Ora to pay costs for counsel regarding the door lock issue. [The tenant/s]’s ability to represent himself in these matters.
In my decision dated 17 July 2023 I commented as follows: ‘The evidence about [The tenant/s]’ ability at that time can be seen in the emails he wrote to Kāinga Ora in 2019 and 2020. They are detailed, well structured, concise and well-reasoned. There are many of them throughout the years. They do not support the view that [The tenant/s] was unable to lodge a claim about locks in the Tribunal by January 2020. A case about a lock change in 2019 or 2020 could have brought an outcome for [The tenant/s] that would have resulted in him feeling more secure in his flat in recent years.’
I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] showed the same ability in the two days of hearings. The Tribunal process is designed to accommodate lay people who have a range of capabilities and anxieties and medical conditions. [The tenant/s] showed a greater ability to present his case than many other lay people who have represented themselves in the Tribunal. He participated in the discussion of more complex matters in his claim. He had the ability to represent himself in the two minor matters where he was successful. Conclusion
I have concluded that it is not appropriate to order costs relating to the nine claims where [The tenant/s] was unsuccessful.
In the two claims where [The tenant/s] was successful, legal representation was unnecessary. For these reasons the claim for costs must be dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4386161 — net $16,099.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
ntative/s] has provided details of the costs relevant to the claim. I understand legal costs and disbursements amount to	$12,329.91	ntative/s] has provided details of the costs relevant to the claim. I understand legal costs and disbursements amount to
Net award	$16,099.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$16,099.00

Order

The claim for costs is dismissed. The Parties’ submissions regarding costs

[The tenant/s] has applied for costs relating to his claim in the Tribunal. [The tenant/s] was represented by counsel, [The tenant’s representative/s]. Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances where the Tribunal can award costs. Sections 102(2) and (3) provide that that where any of the parties is represented by counsel, the Tribunal may order a party to pay the reasonable costs of another party.
Following the Tribunal’s decision regarding [The tenant/s]’s application, the parties made written submissions regarding costs. Their submissions include legal cases from which considerations about costs have been distilled. I have considered those cases and the points raised in the parties’ submissions.
[The tenant’s representative/s] has provided details of the costs relevant to the claim. I understand legal costs and disbursements amount to $12,329.91. In paragraph 24 of [The tenant’s representative/s]’s submission he states, ‘For these

Reasons

it is submitted that an award of costs of $7,200.00 is fair and reasonable in the circumstances’.

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities’ (Kāinga Ora) submission is that there are insufficient grounds for it to have to pay [The tenant/s]’s costs. Kāinga Ora was not represented by counsel at the hearing.
The normal position is that an unsuccessful party may be ordered to contribute to the costs of the successful party. The relevant factors to be considered are set out in decisions such as David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms & Engineering Ltd (1988) PRNZ
The High Court outlined several relevant factors in assessing costs: a. the length of the hearing, b. the amount of money involved, c. the importance of the issues d. the legal and factual complexities, e. the amount of time required for effective preparation, f. the likely or actual costs incurred.
Other factors that may be relevant include: the conduct of the parties, the degree of success, whether unnecessary steps or technical points were taken, and whether arguments lacked substance.
[The tenant’s representative/s] set out his reasons why costs should be ordered using the factors above. In summary he refers to: a. The hearings were for two full days plus a case conference and a mediation, b. The claim against Kāinga Ora was for $16,099.00, c. The issues were critically important to [The tenant/s] and Kāinga Ora lacked insight into the harm [The tenant/s] had experienced, d. There were eleven matters being claimed, they were factually complex and required a review of a wide range of Tribunal orders, e. There was a significant amount of time needed for preparation of the case including time spent with [The tenant/s], f. [The tenant/s] enjoyed partial success in the case regarding compensation claims and work orders.
Kāinga Ora’s response includes the following: a. [The tenant/s] should not be entitled to costs for a largely unsuccessful claim (consistent with the well-established principle that costs are generally only awarded where a party was successful). Only 2 of the 11 claims made were partially successful and of the $16,099.00 sought, the total amount awarded was only $620.44. b. While [The tenant/s]’s application was made up of more than 11 different claims, the nature of the issues involved were not legally or factually complex such that Kāinga Ora did not consider that it needed to be represented by counsel. c. [The tenant/s] was well placed to represent himself because in the hearings he engaged with the issues, speaking to both the Kāinga Ora representative and the Adjudicator about the matters before the Tribunal. d. The involvement of legal counsel in this matter unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding because counsel for [The tenant/s] advancing unmeritorious claims that were not supported by the facts, evidence, or the law, including for example: i. an exemplary damages claim was made which was out of time and related to standards that did not yet apply (see paragraph 18 of the Order); ii. the Tribunal distinguished the precedents relied on by [The tenant/s]’s counsel (see paragraph 43 of the Order) iii. compensation and reimbursement were claimed for the water quality and mould reports that were provided to the Tribunal despite those reports not supporting the claims made (See paragraphs 87- 93 of the Order) iv. the Tenant’s submissions refer to human rights law as being relevant, yet such matters are outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and v. the claims made against Kāinga Ora, and the issues put before the Tribunal, were largely unsupported by the facts, evidence and law.
Kāinga Ora submitted that hearings were unnecessary because Kāinga Ora had tried to work with [The tenant/s] regarding his complaints, had offered him opportunity to relocate to another property in [redacted] prior to his Tribunal application. Kāinga Ora made a without prejudice offer to [The tenant/s] of $500.00 to resolve matters before Tribunal hearings began. Reasons for dismissing the claim for costs.
As has been noted in the parties’ submissions above, [The tenant/s] was successful in two of the eleven claims made in his application. He was awarded $200.00 compensation for inconvenience for a ceiling leak and $400.00 compensation for Kāinga Ora’s failure to permit a lock change. It is important to evaluate whether representation was necessary for those claims to be adequately dealt with in the Tribunal. Whether representation was necessary regarding the claim for compensation for a leaking ceiling.
The leak from the upstairs hot water cylinder into [The tenant/s]’s unit happened in November 2019. The facts were simple. The only matters requiring a decision were (i) the period of time that water was leaking into [The tenant/s]’s unit and (ii) whether Kāinga Ora had some responsibility for that inconvenience to [The tenant/s].
Counsel’s submissions and evidence did not assist with a determination about how long the leak continued. That was determined by Kāinga Ora’s evidence. As to Kāinga Ora’s responsibility for the inconvenience, the answer came from a question I asked, not a question asked by counsel. An adjudicator can work with parties to fully investigate any claim, asking questions to get a complete picture of events. I asked the question whether the contractor released water that was trapped in the ceiling space. If it had been, water would not have dripped into [The tenant/s]’s unit for two days. It was the failure to release trapped water that caused the ongoing inconvenience for [The tenant/s] and led to me ordering compensation. Counsel was not necessary to deal with that part of the claim.
I have considered whether that ceiling leak claim was a complex matter. The material presented about the ceiling leak was [The tenant/s]’s recollection of events and the series of emails following the event. There was no legal research necessary. The claim required a straightforward application of RTA provisions. [The tenant/s]’s involvement in discussing this matter during the hearings confirmed for me that he could easily have presented the material relevant to this claim without the need for counsel. It was not a complex matter.
I am satisfied that whether counsel was representing [The tenant/s] or not in this matter, the outcome would have been the same. Compensation would have been ordered for [The tenant/s]. Therefore, I do not consider it reasonable that Kāinga Ora should be ordered to pay costs for counsel regarding the ceiling leak claim. The importance of counsel regarding compensation for the failure to permit a change to a door lock.
This claim originates from a request by [The tenant/s] to Kāinga Ora in February 2019. Again, the facts were simple. The only real difficulty was that [The tenant/s] waited three years to bring his claim, thereby making it more difficult to establish what lock had been changed and when. As I stated in my order; If this claim had been made in 2019 the Tribunal could have made a work order about locks and compensation would not have been necessary.
The only matter to be determined was whether it was reasonable for the landlord to decline [The tenant/s]’s request to arrange and pay for a more secure door lock.
The lock change issue was not complex matter. The evidence was the series of emails that showed [The tenant/s]’s request and Kāinga Ora’s responses, including one email that led him to believe his request for a more secure lock was being considered. This evidence was all that was needed. It was evidence that could have as easily been presented by [The tenant/s]. There was no legal research necessary. The work order regarding the locks was a logical outcome of my decision that [The tenant/s] should be able to have more secure locks.
I am satisfied that legal representation was unnecessary to adequately deal with the lock issue. I do not consider it reasonable to order Kāinga Ora to pay costs for counsel regarding the door lock issue. [The tenant/s]’s ability to represent himself in these matters.
In my decision dated 17 July 2023 I commented as follows: ‘The evidence about [The tenant/s]’ ability at that time can be seen in the emails he wrote to Kāinga Ora in 2019 and 2020. They are detailed, well structured, concise and well-reasoned. There are many of them throughout the years. They do not support the view that [The tenant/s] was unable to lodge a claim about locks in the Tribunal by January 2020. A case about a lock change in 2019 or 2020 could have brought an outcome for [The tenant/s] that would have resulted in him feeling more secure in his flat in recent years.’
I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] showed the same ability in the two days of hearings. The Tribunal process is designed to accommodate lay people who have a range of capabilities and anxieties and medical conditions. [The tenant/s] showed a greater ability to present his case than many other lay people who have represented themselves in the Tribunal. He participated in the discussion of more complex matters in his claim. He had the ability to represent himself in the two minor matters where he was successful. Conclusion
I have concluded that it is not appropriate to order costs relating to the nine claims where [The tenant/s] was unsuccessful.
In the two claims where [The tenant/s] was successful, legal representation was unnecessary. For these reasons the claim for costs must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4386161 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4386161 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions