What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4532509?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4532509?

Compensation: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532509?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9436493-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4532509?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4532509?

Compensation: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532509?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9436493-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 407 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings Tenancy Tribunal Case 4532509 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4532509 — net $770.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$520.00	Compensation – failure to comply with healthy homes standards
Exemplary damages – no written tenancy agreement	$250.00	Exemplary damages – no written tenancy agreement
Net award	$770.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.00

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Andrew Lazootin, Morris Lazootin and Lazootin Trustee Limited as trustees for the Lazootin Family Trust must pay Michael Gregory $770.00 immediately as set out in the able below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Lazootin attended on behalf of the trustees of the Lazootin Family Trust. Mr Lazootin confirmed that he had authority to represent the other trustees.
The applicant relocated from Auckland to Hawke’s Bay for employment as an Account Manager with Te Wairua Limited, a vape manufacturing company. The applicant was struggling to find accommodation in Hawke’s Bay, so the respondent, a related party to Te Wairua Limited, offered apartment accommodation to the applicant. This arrangement was separate from the applicant’s employment.
The tenancy commenced in January 2022. There was no written tenancy agreement between the parties (hereafter referred to as the tenant and landlord), but there was an oral one that the tenant would pay $450.00 rent per week which he did for over a year.
The premises required some work in order to ensure the landlord complied with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and the intention of the parties was that once that work was completed, they would enter into a written tenancy agreement and a professional property manager would take over the management of the tenancy. The underfloor insulation was completed in April 2022, but a written tenancy agreement did not eventuate.
Unfortunately, the employment terminated, and the tenancy similarly came to an end. The relationship between the parties was clearly strained. The tenant claims the landlord breaches the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) as follows: a. Failure to provide a written tenancy agreement – section 13(4) RTA b. Failure to provide healthy homes information – section 45(1AD) RTA c. Failure to comply with the HHS – section 45(1)(bb) RTA d. Failure to repair and maintain – section 45(1A) RTA e. Breach of quiet enjoyment – section 38 RTA
A case conference was held on 2 July 2023 when directions for today's hearing were issued. The tenant was directed to prepare no more than a one-page summary for each claim against the landlord. The tenant failed to comply with that direction other than to forward approximately 40 emails to Tenancy Services containing automated emails attaching rent invoices from the landlord to the tenant.
The tenant has filed an application and attended the hearing with little evidence in support of the allegations made. That aside, the landlord is not without faults.

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

The tenant claims that he never received a written tenancy agreement from the landlord. The tenant claims to have raised the issue a couple of time at the start of the tenancy but was otherwise not bothered for the remainder of the tenancy.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord acknowledged that a written tenancy agreement was never provided at the commencement of the tenancy. Mr Lazootin stated that they intended to provide a written tenancy agreement once the underfloor insulation was installed but that it was overlooked because the tenant was exemplary in terms of paying his rent. The landlord denies the tenant ever raised the lack of a written tenancy agreement as an issue.
Compensation for this breach was sought by the tenant however no proof of actual loss was proved. There is a requirement to provide evidence to justify any amounts claimed as compensation. This is because liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of the RTA. As there was no actual loss suffered, I do not consider it appropriate to make an award of compensation.
The tenant also sought exemplary damages for the breach. The landlord was careless about its legal obligations as a landlord. The landlord failed meet the legal duty to provide a written tenancy. The landlord should have been aware of this obligation. I am therefore satisfied that the act was intentional, however not deceptive or malicious. I therefore must consider an award of exemplary damages pursuant to the factors in s109 RTA.
The failure does not appear to have affected the tenant to any great extent. There is however a public interest in ensuring tenants have access to a written tenancy agreement setting out the terms and conditions of their tenancy. After consideration of the above factors, I am satisfied that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale of $250.00 is just.

Has the landlord failed to provide a copy of the Healthy Homes Standards report?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45 of the RTA. Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In order to succeed with this claim, the tenant must prove that he requested the healthy homes information and that it was not provided within 21 days of his request.
I find that there was no evidence that the tenant requested the healthy homes information to be provided. The tenant only became aware of the landlord’s obligation to provide such information at the end of the tenancy. Whilst the tenant believed that the landlord did not comply with the HHS they have not requested a healthy homes report.
The tenant has failed in this aspect of his claim.

Did the landlord failure to comply with HHS and failing to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, which requires compliance with the HHS. The tenant says that the landlord has failed to comply with the standards regarding draught stopping, ventilation, heating and insulation.
The landlord also has obligations under 45(1)(b) of the RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age, and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Breaching either of those obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See sections 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 of the RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to his attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant offered no evidence in support of his claims, other than his evidence that the premises were very cold and that he would have to run the heat pump constantly. The tenant claims his electricity bills were approximately $250.00 per month but provided no evidence supporting his claim. There is little evidence that the tenant raised his concerns with the landlord during the tenancy. For example, there is no evidence of text messages or emails raising any issues from the tenant to the landlord. The tenant did not produce any photographs or videos of his concerns with the premises.
In response, the landlord provided a compliance statement that was allegedly completed at the start of the tenancy and a Healthy Homes Assessment Report completed by Betta Property Compliance at the end of the tenancy. The report provided by the landlord indicates compliance with the HHS except for heating and draughts. The report states the heater is not compliant and there are multiple gaps throughout the premises. Ironically, whilst the tenant’s claim is entirely lacking evidence, the landlord has provided evidence of their failure to comply with the HHS with regard to heating and draughts throughout the tenancy.
Accordingly, the tenants claims that the premises were not compliant with the HHS is supported by the report provided by the landlord. This amounts to a breach of the HHS. However, based on the evidence before me, the issue was not brought to the attention of the landlord. A landlord is not generally responsible for lack of repair of which is does not have notice.
Based on the evidence before me, I consider a reasonable assessment of compensation to be $40.00 per week for a period of 13 weeks, on the basis that the impact on the tenant was likely over the Winter period and acknowledging the fact that the tenant may, at least inadvertently, have contributed to the situation by not giving any notice of his concerns.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant claims the landlord has harassed him by constantly sending him reminders to pay his rent. The tenant provided copies of approximately 40 automated emails sent from the landlord’s accounting software reminding the tenant to pay his rent. The tenant stated that the emails led to a great emotional strain. The tenant also claims his job was threatened after he complained about the number of emails he was receiving.
The landlord denies harassing the tenant. The landlord questioned the number of emails the tenant claims to have received and states that the tenant only raised these issues after his employment was terminated.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I have no difficulty in dismissing the tenant’s claim that the landlord interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in his use of the premises. I do not consider sending automated emails regarding rent payments to be interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises or harassment in any way, shape or form. The tenant could have simply deleted the automated emails or redirected the emails to his spam. The tenant has provided no evidence supporting his claim that his employment was threatened.
Accordingly, I dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because the tenant has not been substantially successful with his claims, the filing fee has not been reimbursed. Name suppression
The tenant sought suppression of his identifying details in any publication of this order.
If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order 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. Section 95A RTA.
The tenant has only partially been successful in these proceedings. There are no sensitive matters relating to the tenancy about his personal circumstances within the decision that would justify suppression. Having considered the factors and balancing the public interest for future landlords and tenants, in this case, the Tribunal declines to grant suppression as sought. T Lee-Lewis 24 September 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4532509 — net $770.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$520.00	Compensation – failure to comply with healthy homes standards
Exemplary damages – no written tenancy agreement	$250.00	Exemplary damages – no written tenancy agreement
Net award	$770.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.00

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Andrew Lazootin, Morris Lazootin and Lazootin Trustee Limited as trustees for the Lazootin Family Trust must pay Michael Gregory $770.00 immediately as set out in the able below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Lazootin attended on behalf of the trustees of the Lazootin Family Trust. Mr Lazootin confirmed that he had authority to represent the other trustees.
The applicant relocated from Auckland to Hawke’s Bay for employment as an Account Manager with Te Wairua Limited, a vape manufacturing company. The applicant was struggling to find accommodation in Hawke’s Bay, so the respondent, a related party to Te Wairua Limited, offered apartment accommodation to the applicant. This arrangement was separate from the applicant’s employment.
The tenancy commenced in January 2022. There was no written tenancy agreement between the parties (hereafter referred to as the tenant and landlord), but there was an oral one that the tenant would pay $450.00 rent per week which he did for over a year.
The premises required some work in order to ensure the landlord complied with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and the intention of the parties was that once that work was completed, they would enter into a written tenancy agreement and a professional property manager would take over the management of the tenancy. The underfloor insulation was completed in April 2022, but a written tenancy agreement did not eventuate.
Unfortunately, the employment terminated, and the tenancy similarly came to an end. The relationship between the parties was clearly strained. The tenant claims the landlord breaches the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) as follows: a. Failure to provide a written tenancy agreement – section 13(4) RTA b. Failure to provide healthy homes information – section 45(1AD) RTA c. Failure to comply with the HHS – section 45(1)(bb) RTA d. Failure to repair and maintain – section 45(1A) RTA e. Breach of quiet enjoyment – section 38 RTA
A case conference was held on 2 July 2023 when directions for today's hearing were issued. The tenant was directed to prepare no more than a one-page summary for each claim against the landlord. The tenant failed to comply with that direction other than to forward approximately 40 emails to Tenancy Services containing automated emails attaching rent invoices from the landlord to the tenant.
The tenant has filed an application and attended the hearing with little evidence in support of the allegations made. That aside, the landlord is not without faults.

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

The tenant claims that he never received a written tenancy agreement from the landlord. The tenant claims to have raised the issue a couple of time at the start of the tenancy but was otherwise not bothered for the remainder of the tenancy.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord acknowledged that a written tenancy agreement was never provided at the commencement of the tenancy. Mr Lazootin stated that they intended to provide a written tenancy agreement once the underfloor insulation was installed but that it was overlooked because the tenant was exemplary in terms of paying his rent. The landlord denies the tenant ever raised the lack of a written tenancy agreement as an issue.
Compensation for this breach was sought by the tenant however no proof of actual loss was proved. There is a requirement to provide evidence to justify any amounts claimed as compensation. This is because liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of the RTA. As there was no actual loss suffered, I do not consider it appropriate to make an award of compensation.
The tenant also sought exemplary damages for the breach. The landlord was careless about its legal obligations as a landlord. The landlord failed meet the legal duty to provide a written tenancy. The landlord should have been aware of this obligation. I am therefore satisfied that the act was intentional, however not deceptive or malicious. I therefore must consider an award of exemplary damages pursuant to the factors in s109 RTA.
The failure does not appear to have affected the tenant to any great extent. There is however a public interest in ensuring tenants have access to a written tenancy agreement setting out the terms and conditions of their tenancy. After consideration of the above factors, I am satisfied that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale of $250.00 is just.

Has the landlord failed to provide a copy of the Healthy Homes Standards report?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45 of the RTA. Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In order to succeed with this claim, the tenant must prove that he requested the healthy homes information and that it was not provided within 21 days of his request.
I find that there was no evidence that the tenant requested the healthy homes information to be provided. The tenant only became aware of the landlord’s obligation to provide such information at the end of the tenancy. Whilst the tenant believed that the landlord did not comply with the HHS they have not requested a healthy homes report.
The tenant has failed in this aspect of his claim.

Did the landlord failure to comply with HHS and failing to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, which requires compliance with the HHS. The tenant says that the landlord has failed to comply with the standards regarding draught stopping, ventilation, heating and insulation.
The landlord also has obligations under 45(1)(b) of the RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age, and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Breaching either of those obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See sections 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 of the RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to his attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant offered no evidence in support of his claims, other than his evidence that the premises were very cold and that he would have to run the heat pump constantly. The tenant claims his electricity bills were approximately $250.00 per month but provided no evidence supporting his claim. There is little evidence that the tenant raised his concerns with the landlord during the tenancy. For example, there is no evidence of text messages or emails raising any issues from the tenant to the landlord. The tenant did not produce any photographs or videos of his concerns with the premises.
In response, the landlord provided a compliance statement that was allegedly completed at the start of the tenancy and a Healthy Homes Assessment Report completed by Betta Property Compliance at the end of the tenancy. The report provided by the landlord indicates compliance with the HHS except for heating and draughts. The report states the heater is not compliant and there are multiple gaps throughout the premises. Ironically, whilst the tenant’s claim is entirely lacking evidence, the landlord has provided evidence of their failure to comply with the HHS with regard to heating and draughts throughout the tenancy.
Accordingly, the tenants claims that the premises were not compliant with the HHS is supported by the report provided by the landlord. This amounts to a breach of the HHS. However, based on the evidence before me, the issue was not brought to the attention of the landlord. A landlord is not generally responsible for lack of repair of which is does not have notice.
Based on the evidence before me, I consider a reasonable assessment of compensation to be $40.00 per week for a period of 13 weeks, on the basis that the impact on the tenant was likely over the Winter period and acknowledging the fact that the tenant may, at least inadvertently, have contributed to the situation by not giving any notice of his concerns.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant claims the landlord has harassed him by constantly sending him reminders to pay his rent. The tenant provided copies of approximately 40 automated emails sent from the landlord’s accounting software reminding the tenant to pay his rent. The tenant stated that the emails led to a great emotional strain. The tenant also claims his job was threatened after he complained about the number of emails he was receiving.
The landlord denies harassing the tenant. The landlord questioned the number of emails the tenant claims to have received and states that the tenant only raised these issues after his employment was terminated.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I have no difficulty in dismissing the tenant’s claim that the landlord interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in his use of the premises. I do not consider sending automated emails regarding rent payments to be interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises or harassment in any way, shape or form. The tenant could have simply deleted the automated emails or redirected the emails to his spam. The tenant has provided no evidence supporting his claim that his employment was threatened.
Accordingly, I dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because the tenant has not been substantially successful with his claims, the filing fee has not been reimbursed. Name suppression
The tenant sought suppression of his identifying details in any publication of this order.
If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order 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. Section 95A RTA.
The tenant has only partially been successful in these proceedings. There are no sensitive matters relating to the tenancy about his personal circumstances within the decision that would justify suppression. Having considered the factors and balancing the public interest for future landlords and tenants, in this case, the Tribunal declines to grant suppression as sought. T Lee-Lewis 24 September 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532509 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 407 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532509 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 407 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

Has the landlord failed to provide a copy of the Healthy Homes Standards report?

Did the landlord failure to comply with HHS and failing to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

Has the landlord failed to provide a copy of the Healthy Homes Standards report?

Did the landlord failure to comply with HHS and failing to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions