How much money was awarded in case 4538349?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Fridge: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4538349?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4538349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9124178-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4538349?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Fridge: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4538349?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4538349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9124178-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 Acorn Street, Royal Oak, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4538349 — Healthy homes

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4538349 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4538349 — net $4,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond	$500.00	Failure to Lodge Bond
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes (Insulation/Heating	$2,500.00	Healthy Homes (Insulation/Heating
Exemplary damages: Unlawful Entry	$1,000.00	Unlawful Entry
Compensation: Fridge	$200.00	Fridge
Compensation	$300.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,520.44
Bond	$1,230.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,520.44

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,230.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Lei Jin must pay [The tenant/s] $4,520.44 immediately as per the table below.

Lei Jin’s cross-application is dismissed.

Reasons

All the parties attended the hearing.

This was a tenancy where the rental premises is a granny flat. It sits on the landlord’s property behind the landlord’s house.

The premises was empty during the Covid period. These tenants were the first to rent it from 23 October 2023 until they vacated on 15 April 2023. The female tenant has been in New Zealand since 2019. The male tenant is new to the country.

The landlord says he had many previous tenants for the premises. The Tenants Claims

[The tenant/s] seek exemplary damages and compensation for the following claims against the landlord. They say the landlord: (a) Did not provide a Healthy Homes certificate and the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes standards. (b) Did not lodge the Bond within the specified timeframe. (c) Entered their home without notice, ie unlawfully. (d) Terminated the tenancy agreement without reasonable notice. (e) Failed to give receipts for rent. (f) Provided a fridge with problems which damaged their food. (g) Acted in a discriminatory manner towards them.

Lei Jin seeks compensation and claims the following against the tenants, saying the tenants: (a) Were negligent in using the fridge and caused the fridge to be damaged. (b) Moved out early in breach of the fixed term agreement and owes him rent. (c) Falsely accused the landlord of unlawful entry. (d) Should be charged with false report made to the police. The Tenants’ Claims Failure to Lodge Bond

The landlord admits in his statement to the Tribunal he did not lodge the bond with the bond centre until 24 March 2023.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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) RTA.

A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.

The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).

However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).

The landlord spoke about having previous tenants. The landlord spoke about being aware of tenancy rules in New Zealand when compared to the tenants. I find the landlord should have known of the obligation to lodge the bond and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Healthy Homes Standards No Compliance Certificate

On 23 March 2023, the landlord was asked by the tenants if there was a Healthy Homes report. This was after the landlord felt he was slighted by the tenants on 22 March 2023 when he queried why the rent payment had not gone through.

The landlord sought advice from a property manager and made plans for an assessment to be done.

It is clear the landlord was not aware of his obligations under the Healthy Homes Standards until asked about it.

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.

Because the relationship with the tenants had broken down, the landlord did not tell the tenants what had happened after the inspection took place on 27 March 2023.

The final inspection was carried out after the tenants had vacated the property. This final report shows the premises now complies with the Healthy Homes Standards. It did not fully comply as at March 2023.

The evidence shows there was no Healthy Homes compliance certificate provided with the Tenancy Agreement. An older version of the tenancy agreement was used by the landlord.

Once informed, the landlord took remedial steps to obtain compliance. It appears he did not provide any certificate to the tenant within the 21 days because he was unable to do so as it did not exist. Insulation

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The Healthy Homes report shows the landlord did not comply with the insulation standards when the initial inspection took place. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

The landlord did not comply with the insulation standards until the issue of compliance was raised with him by the tenants.

The landlord should have been aware of his obligations. Heating

[The tenant/s] claim there was no fixed heater provided in the premises.

Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. In this case, all private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021.

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. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

The landlord confirms there was no fixed qualifying heater provided and that the tenants had their own heaters. The landlord says the rent included power. The landlord also said the tenancy was during the warmer months of the year.

The initial Healthy Homes report shows there was a failure in providing a fixed heater. This has since been rectified but only after raised by the tenant and installed at the end stages of this tenancy.

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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

Considering those factors, I have determined the landlord appears to be ignorant of his responsibilities as a landlord. This cannot be used as an excuse.

It is in the public interest that these Healthy Homes matters are addressed by the landlord.

It is also not an excuse to say that it is the tenant’s responsibility to raise such tenancy matters. Compliance to these standards are the responsibility of the landlord. Extractor Fan

[The tenant/s] claim the extractor fan in the Bathroom was not working properly. They showed a video of the inspector doing a paper test of the suction of the fan during the Healthy Homes Inspection.

They say they did another test and found the paper suction was better after insulation had been topped up.

The initial Healthy Homes Inspection Report did not refer to any deficit of the extractor fan.

The tenants were worried that after they discovered the ceiling insulation had been increased without their knowledge, that the landlord or someone had entered their home to fix the extractor fan.

After hearing from the landlord and considering the evidence provided, the Tribunal is not satisfied if there was any issue with the extractor fan.

Looking at the Healthy Homes standards collectively, the landlord has breached his responsibilities.

The landlord did not provide a certificate (and was not able to at the time) and breached his insulation and heating obligations.

Looking at the totality of the breaches, given this is the first time that the landlord has had to address the Healthy Homes issues and has rectified this, I consider a fair sum of exemplary damages to be paid to the tenants to be $500.00 for the lack of the certificate, $1,000.00 for breach of insulation, $1,000.00 for breach of heating. In total the award for these breaches are $2,500.00. Unlawful Entry

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections for repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The landlord says he entered the ceiling space of the premises from a manhole in the ceiling of a storage area connected to the rental premises. This was to put more insulation on the ceiling after the initial Healthy Homes inspection.

The landlord says he did not want to engage with the tenants what he considers an argument on 22 and 23 March 2023. He did not inform the tenants what he was doing.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The landlord says the ceiling space was not part of the tenancy premises as he did not have to enter the rooms of the rental premises. I do not agree. The ceiling space above a tenant’s lounge, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom is part of the tenant’s home. Any entry into this space, except for emergencies, requires the landlord to give the required notice to the tenant.

It is in the public interest that tenants enjoy their home without landlords accessing spaces such as the ceiling space of their home without their knowledge. The landlord deliberately used the manhole to access the ceiling space without informing the tenants or seeking notice to try and correct a breach of the insulation standard.

The tenants are awarded $1,000.00 exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful entry. Receipt for Rent

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent paid.

A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The evidence suggests the payment of rent was via automatic bank transfer payment.

The tenant has not satisfied the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the rent payments required a receipt and this claim is dismissed. Fridge

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord provided a fridge which did not work properly and damaged their food. They say on 11 November 2022 they told the landlord there was a problem with water in the bottom of the fridge.

The landlord came to fix the fridge and cleared a pipe. On or about 30 January 2023 they said the temperature of the fridge was not controlled and the landlord came to fix it again. This time there was some ice growing in the fridge.

The tenants felt the landlord did not speak to them properly about the repair, rather they felt they were being scolded. The landlord told the tenants to check the fridge the following few days.

The tenants did not want to engage with the landlord and stopped complaining about the fridge until 7 March 2023. By this time there was a lot more ice in the fridge which damaged their food.

The tenants say they got told off again for messing around with the fridge and that they did not know anything.

The landlord says the fridge was 8 years old and that he told the tenants in January to contact him if the fridge still caused problems after the electrical repair he did. The landlord says it is the tenant’s fault the fridge was damaged as the tenants did not contact him earlier about the problem.

The fridge had problems from early in the tenancy. The tenants let the landlord know of the problem but were spoken down to which made them feel they did not want to complain further.

I consider the tenants did what they could as reasonably expected given the relationship difficulties and suffered loss of amenity and damage to their food. I award the tenants $200.00 in compensation for this damage. Discrimination

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord discriminated against them.

A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) RTA.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The video evidence provided by the tenant does not show any discrimination showed by the landlord in the traditional sense.

What the evidence from the video and wechat exchanges show is insulting language used by the landlord aimed at their financial status, ignorance of NZ tenancy matters, and generally treating the tenants poorly. This falls short of harassment but is a breach of the tenant’s peace and quiet, a lack of allowing them to settle and enjoy living in their home during the rental period.

Emotions were high on 22 and 23 March 2023. The landlord wanted rent paid on time and felt a loss of face after the tenant raised the issue of paying cash for rent and telling the landlord to knock on their door for rent payments and requesting the Healthy Homes report.

The landlord says the tenant escalated matters and filed applications with the Tribunal. The landlord said he filed his cross application after the mediation failed to reach agreement.

After considering what both parties have said in their evidence, I award the tenants $300.00 as compensation for their breach of quiet enjoyment due to the insulting language used by the landlord towards them.

Because the claim for discrimination is not made out, there cannot be an award for exemplary damages. Landlord’s Claims Fridge Damage

The landlord claims it was the tenant’s negligence that the fridge was damaged and had to be replaced.

I considered earlier in this decision this was an old fridge and the tenants had notified the landlord when there were problems with it. The tenant’s claim has been preferred and award made for the damage to their food. On that basis, there was no negligence on the part of the tenant.

The landlord has failed in satisfying the Tribunal of his counterclaim and his claim is dismissed. Rent in lieu of Notice for breach of Fixed term Tenancy

The landlord provided his statement that he agreed to the tenant leaving immediately upon giving notice. His words are clear “Landlord agreed them to move out without need notice. They are not welcome to stay by landlord.”

The landlord is estopped from now claiming 3 weeks rent in lieu of notice as the tenants relied on the landlord letting them leave immediately.

This claim is dismissed. Tenant Falsely Accused Landlord of Unlawful Entry

The landlord says the tenant has falsely accused him of entering their premises.

The landlord admitted going into the ceiling space to install insulation, from a manhole in a storage room connected to the rental premises.

It has already been determined this was unlawful entry by the landlord and therefore there cannot be any compensation for something that is found to be in favour of the tenants.

The Tribunal is not satisfied this claim is made out and the claim is dismissed. Charge for False Allegations

The landlord wants the tenant to be prosecuted by the police for false allegations made against him for the unlawful entry.

I have already found the landlord entered the rental premises unlawfully and awarded exemplary damages for this.

This is a matter for the police, not the Tenancy Tribunal. The tenants may want to reflect if calling the police was a reasonable response from them.

The claim is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is dismissed. Filing Fee

Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression

The tenants are seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order.

The landlord opposes the tenants having name suppression.

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.

Because the tenants have been substantially successful in their application, the Tribunal grants suppression of the tenants’ details as sought.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4538349 — net $4,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond	$500.00	Failure to Lodge Bond
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes (Insulation/Heating	$2,500.00	Healthy Homes (Insulation/Heating
Exemplary damages: Unlawful Entry	$1,000.00	Unlawful Entry
Compensation: Fridge	$200.00	Fridge
Compensation	$300.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,520.44
Bond	$1,230.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,520.44