What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4503709 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4503709?

Compensation: Electrical Issues: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4503709?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4503709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9748914-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4503709 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4503709?

Compensation: Electrical Issues: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4503709?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4503709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9748914-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4503709 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4503709 — net $1,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Electrical issues	$600.00	Electrical issues
Exemplary damages: Smoke alarms	$1,000.00	Smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,620.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4503709 — net $1,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Electrical issues	$600.00	Electrical issues
Exemplary damages: Smoke alarms	$1,000.00	Smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,620.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,620.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Background

This is the second hearing concerning the tenants’ application for compensation and exemplary damages. Only [The tenant/s] appeared on behalf of the tenants at this hearing. The first hearing was attended by [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] the landlord and owner along with [The landlord’s support person] in support.
A work order was issued following the first hearing. The hearing was adjourned part-heard to allow the landlord additional time to produce further relevant evidence. The tenants were also given the opportunity to produce additional evidence, including evidence concerning the smoke alarms. The tenants claim for compensation and exemplary damages was to be determined following the second hearing. No further documentary or photographic evidence was provided by either party.
The background facts are set out in the earlier order. As previously stated, this is a periodic tenancy which began on 15 July 2022. The tenants applied for a work order to address electrical faults and requested the installation of a heat pump. The tenants state they contacted the property manager multiple times regarding faulty electrics, including lights often switching themselves on in the house, and faulty light fittings. They note there is no lighting in the garage or laundry, and the dryer was not functioning. These issues were present from the time they moved in. Documentary evidence was provided, including emails and text exchanges.
The tenants also seek compensation of $8,000.00 for the inability to have full use of the laundry and garage due to the lack of functioning lights in these two rooms.
Exemplary damages are claimed for the premises not having smoke alarms installed for the first few months of the tenancy and for the faulty electrics. The lack of a heat pump is also noted. The tenants state that it was understood a heat pump would be installed within 90 days of them moving in. The tenants consider the premises does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Electrical issues
In the first Tribunal order, it was found that the tenants had established that the landlord ought to carry out work to address the electrical issues, to ensure all lights and plugs at the premises were fully functioning, and that the problems with the lights switching on randomly were resolved.
[The tenant/s] oral evidence at the second hearing is that the landlord did arrange for an electrician to attend the premises. The electrician, who came on 26 May 2023, advised that this was a complex electrical system. The issues with the lights randomly switching on and off have now been resolved. However, the light fitting at the front door was still faulty and the clothes dryer was not working. Some plug points were still not functioning, but this was no longer problematic since there were sufficient plug points in the premises.
The tenants’ evidence is that the landlord had indicated that the dryer was to be replaced and sent information to the tenants about a replacement, but no replacement dryer has been provided. The clothes dryer is listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement and therefore, the landlord has an obligation to ensure that it is functional.
Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, and noting the evidence given at this hearing, my finding is that the tenants ought to be compensated for the electrical issues, including the faulty dryer. This problem was raised at the previous hearing, and a work order was issued but has not been completely resolved by the landlord. The electrical issues have been ongoing since the start of the tenancy, and have been notified to the landlord on multiple occasions.
Taking into account the nature of the problem, the duration, the effect on the tenants and noting the numerous times these issues have been raised, the tenants are to be compensated in the amount of $600.00. Smoke alarms
In the first order, it was noted that the evidence from the parties on the issue of the smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy was unclear and conflicting. The tenants stated there were no smoke alarms in the premises when they moved in. The landlord’s evidence was that smoke alarms were always there. The landlord relied on a report completed by All Clear following an assessment on 5 May 2023. There was also a report completed on 28 April 2023 by Auckland Building Reports (ABR).
As noted earlier, the tenancy agreement does not record the number of fitted working smoke alarms in the premises. There has been no photographic evidence in support from the tenants, and the Tribunal does not have access to any inspection reports. There was opportunity for additional evidence to be provided on this issue, including the relevant inspection report prepared by [(the previous property management company)] at the start of the tenancy. However, this additional evidence has not been provided and therefore, my findings will be based on the available evidence.
The ABR report found that the premises was non-compliant in relation to the Smoke Alarms Regulations and further action was required. This report records the location of alarms as being in the hallway, suggesting there were alarms located in the premises at the time of inspection. It also notes that no smoke alarm was observed within a three metre range of the upstairs and downstairs bedrooms. It states that two smoke alarms must be installed upstairs within a three metre range of the bedrooms.
The All Clear report, completed one week later, on 5 May 2023, indicates that there were smoke alarms in the kitchen and hallway, but further alarms were required, and one of the existing alarms was non-compliant. Only the alarm in the kitchen was compliant. The report then records that additional alarms were installed in the upstairs hallway. These were then tested and found to be compliant.
Therefore, as of 5 May 2023, the premises had compliant smoke alarms. Based on the available evidence it appears that, from the start of the tenancy in July 2022, up to this date, there were some smoke alarms in the premises. However, both reports show that the premises did not comply with the Regulations and additional alarms had to be installed to bring the premises up to the required standard.
In this case, Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), which sets out the landlord’s obligations, is relevant. Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Smoke alarms must meet qualifying standards and be installed in certain locations. This includes the requirement that a smoke alarm be installed in the sleeping space or within three metres of the entrance of the sleeping space. There should also be a smoke alarm on each storey of a tenancy property. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 1
The RTA states that the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally. In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must be satisfied that 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. 2
I have had regard to the factors set out in Section 109(3) of the RTA. In this case the evidence is that there were smoke alarms present in the premises at the start of the tenancy, and there was one compliant alarm in the kitchen. However, additional alarms needed to be installed to bring the premises up to the required standard. In view of the premises not complying with the Regulations, and being satisfied that the unlawful act was intentionally committed, an award of exemplary damages is just (section 109 RTA).
In determining the amount of exemplary damages, I have taken into account the high degree of public interest in ensuring compliance with the smoke alarm 1 See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 2 See section 109(3) of the RTA requirements. I have also noted the fact that there were some smoke alarms in the premises.
Taking all these factors into account, I award exemplary damages of $1,000.00. Heat pump
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. 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 2023.
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. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. 3
This tenancy began after 1 July 2021 and therefore, the requirement that the premises comply with the HHS within 90 days of the start of the tenancy will apply.
As noted in the earlier order, the tenants understood that a heat pump would be installed, and that there was an HHS report in August 2022 indicating the premises may not be compliant with the heating standard. However, they have since been informed that the house complies with the HHS and the installation of a heat pump may no longer be required. The tenants have clarified that the request for a heat pump was mainly to have the benefit of air conditioning in the summer. The reason for the tenants following up regarding the heat pump was because they had thought they were getting a heat pump installed.
In reply, the landlord challenges the August 2022 report and states that a second report was completed on 28 April 2023. A copy of this report, prepared by 3 See section 45(1A) of the RTA Auckland Building Reports (ABR), was produced at the hearing. The landlord states that he did not see the August 2022 report at the time. When informed that a heat pump was required, he asked why the gas fire was not being used. The landlord has clarified that it was never agreed that a heat pump would be installed. He has explained that due to the design of the house, it was difficult to install a heat pump.
In this case, having had regard to the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the premises does comply with the RTA in terms of the heating standard. In reaching this finding, I rely on the ABR report. This report was completed following an assessment of the premises with specific regard to the HHS. The conclusion was that the heat output from the existing gas fireplace met the requirements under the HHS for the living room and kitchen. The tenants have not provided any contrary evidence to challenge these findings.
Furthermore, the tenants did not actually express concern about the heating standard, and had wanted the heat pump to be installed so they could take advantage of its cooling function. As the currently installed gas fireplace meets the HHS, there is no further requirement for the landlord to install a heat pump. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] have been mostly successful, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4503709 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4503709 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions