What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4541282 about?

The tribunal order states: This order supersedes the order released earlier today as it refers to

How much money was awarded in case 4541282?

The reconciled net award was $500.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541282?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9054614-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4541282 about?

The tribunal order states: This order supersedes the order released earlier today as it refers to

How much money was awarded in case 4541282?

The reconciled net award was $500.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541282?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541282?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9054614-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4541282 — Healthy homes

Order

This order supersedes the order released earlier today as it refers to

Reasons

why suppression is ordered. There are no other changes to the order.

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at the end of Thursday 22 June 2023.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 as compensation. Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord/s agent] as agent for the landlord, and [The tenant/s] and his support person.
[The tenant/s] has lived in this property for 5 years, the tenancy beginning on 18 January 2018. In about May 2022, the current agents took over the management of the property and organised a Healthy Homes Assessment. A certificate of compliance was issued after upgrades were suggested and issued by [The compliance company].
The property was damaged by the floods in Auckland on 27 January 2023. At the time, [The tenant/s] was overseas. The agent sought his permission to enter the property and advised him of the flooding downstairs. The tenant’s belongings were not moved until he returned on 10 February 2023. The carpet was not removed until the tenant returned.
[The tenant/s] is currently living in temporary accommodation, paying $140.00 reduced rent to the landlord. His personal property is still in storage in the premises. He continues to have access to the property, which he says he goes to up to 3 times a week. His children go to school nearby.
[The tenant/s] has applied for compensation and exemplary damages saying: (a)The Healthy Homes Standards compliance certificate obtained in September 2022 was obtained by fraudulent means. (b)The property managers were unprofessional and did not follow up with sorting out the flood damaged premises in a timely manner. Tenant’s Application Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the agent obtained a certificate of compliance that suggests the property meets the Healthy Homes Standards by fraudulent means.
He says he was not present, but his partner was and heard conversation that he believes refers to the agent not following due process.
I can put limited weight with the second hand conversation heard.
The agent has provided emails and explained the process they followed in making sure the home was compliant with the new standards coming in force.
After hearing the evidence, the tenant has failed to prove there was any fraudulent conduct or behaviour in the part of the agents in obtaining the certificate of compliance.
This claim is dismissed. Property managers unprofessional and did not follow up with sorting out the flood damaged premises in a timely manner
The agents and tenant provided email communication in February about whether either party wanted the tenancy to end. It seems neither party was sure whether the tenancy could come to an end. The parties came to an agreement where the tenant was going to pay reduced rent while the flood damage was being assessed and rectified.
The agents say they had to deal with the Body Corporate to sort the insurance claim and chased this up constantly to address the flood damage. In the meantime, the agents confirm the landlord is receiving is some loss of rent insurance. The agents were not sure of the quantum.
The tenant feels aggrieved that he has now paid reduced rent for a longer period than initially thought. He feels he was given false hope of return by the agents.
I consider the landlord could have been clearer about whether this tenancy could actually continue more quickly. There was opportunity given to the tenant to decide to leave with what I can only assume no penalty (though this is not clear). The tenant wanted to continue to live in a place where he and his family have lived in for the past 5 years and was near their community. This was their home.
By April 2023, when insurance companies were not responding promptly and nothing was progressing, it would have become clearer that this was a problem that may require more resources and take longer time to resolve.
The tenant paid reduced rent of $140.00. I consider that there should be further compensation of $500.00 paid to the tenant for the delays in the landlord being clear about whether this property was going to be fixed within a timely manner or not. It is a minimal award as the tenant did have his items in the property and has had access to the property.
I do not consider the agents were unprofessional in dealing with the tenant, though it is not clear why the agents were arranging for a meth test of the property recently. It is clear that relationship between the agent and tenant have broken down and little goodwill between them. Landlord’s Application
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that it is uninhabitable due to the flood damage that requires extensive renovation (which is different to what was initially thought). The agents say initially it was thought to be a simpler issue but now after contractors recently visited, there needs to be a more extensive check of the flooring and walls and likely replacement.
The tenant does not dispute the tenancy is currently uninhabitable.
Having seen the photos and heard the evidence that the premises is still uninhabitable, the tenancy must be terminated. I have given some time for the tenant to remove his belongings from the property and terminate the tenancy to take effect at the end of Thursday 22 June 2023.
The landlord is also seeking compensation for what he considers the tenant being time wasting and making a frivolous application. In effect this is a defence to the tenant’s claim and is considered within the tenant’s application. The application for compensation by the agents on this ground is dismissed.
During the hearing the matter of the bond was raised. I initially referred to the bond as belonging to the tenant and being released at the end of the tenancy. The agents referred to staining of the carpet that may affect the amount of bond that would be released. This tenancy ends at the end of Thursday 22 June 2023, the tenant is reminded to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
If there is issue with the bond, either party can seek mediation or apply to the Tribunal.
Both parties have had some measure of success, but neither have had substantial success of their claim. Therefore the filing fee is not reimbursed to either party.
Both parties have sought name suppression and have had a measure of success.
Having considered the factors in this case where there have been allegations that are not proved and being mindful there has been a disaster that has had an impact on both parties, the Tribunal exercises its discretion and considers there is no public interest in the names of the parties and details of the tenancy and grants suppression as sought. Section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

This order supersedes the order released earlier today as it refers to

Reasons

why suppression is ordered. There are no other changes to the order.

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at the end of Thursday 22 June 2023.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 as compensation. Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord/s agent] as agent for the landlord, and [The tenant/s] and his support person.
[The tenant/s] has lived in this property for 5 years, the tenancy beginning on 18 January 2018. In about May 2022, the current agents took over the management of the property and organised a Healthy Homes Assessment. A certificate of compliance was issued after upgrades were suggested and issued by [The compliance company].
The property was damaged by the floods in Auckland on 27 January 2023. At the time, [The tenant/s] was overseas. The agent sought his permission to enter the property and advised him of the flooding downstairs. The tenant’s belongings were not moved until he returned on 10 February 2023. The carpet was not removed until the tenant returned.
[The tenant/s] is currently living in temporary accommodation, paying $140.00 reduced rent to the landlord. His personal property is still in storage in the premises. He continues to have access to the property, which he says he goes to up to 3 times a week. His children go to school nearby.
[The tenant/s] has applied for compensation and exemplary damages saying: (a)The Healthy Homes Standards compliance certificate obtained in September 2022 was obtained by fraudulent means. (b)The property managers were unprofessional and did not follow up with sorting out the flood damaged premises in a timely manner. Tenant’s Application Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the agent obtained a certificate of compliance that suggests the property meets the Healthy Homes Standards by fraudulent means.
He says he was not present, but his partner was and heard conversation that he believes refers to the agent not following due process.
I can put limited weight with the second hand conversation heard.
The agent has provided emails and explained the process they followed in making sure the home was compliant with the new standards coming in force.
After hearing the evidence, the tenant has failed to prove there was any fraudulent conduct or behaviour in the part of the agents in obtaining the certificate of compliance.
This claim is dismissed. Property managers unprofessional and did not follow up with sorting out the flood damaged premises in a timely manner
The agents and tenant provided email communication in February about whether either party wanted the tenancy to end. It seems neither party was sure whether the tenancy could come to an end. The parties came to an agreement where the tenant was going to pay reduced rent while the flood damage was being assessed and rectified.
The agents say they had to deal with the Body Corporate to sort the insurance claim and chased this up constantly to address the flood damage. In the meantime, the agents confirm the landlord is receiving is some loss of rent insurance. The agents were not sure of the quantum.
The tenant feels aggrieved that he has now paid reduced rent for a longer period than initially thought. He feels he was given false hope of return by the agents.
I consider the landlord could have been clearer about whether this tenancy could actually continue more quickly. There was opportunity given to the tenant to decide to leave with what I can only assume no penalty (though this is not clear). The tenant wanted to continue to live in a place where he and his family have lived in for the past 5 years and was near their community. This was their home.
By April 2023, when insurance companies were not responding promptly and nothing was progressing, it would have become clearer that this was a problem that may require more resources and take longer time to resolve.
The tenant paid reduced rent of $140.00. I consider that there should be further compensation of $500.00 paid to the tenant for the delays in the landlord being clear about whether this property was going to be fixed within a timely manner or not. It is a minimal award as the tenant did have his items in the property and has had access to the property.
I do not consider the agents were unprofessional in dealing with the tenant, though it is not clear why the agents were arranging for a meth test of the property recently. It is clear that relationship between the agent and tenant have broken down and little goodwill between them. Landlord’s Application
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that it is uninhabitable due to the flood damage that requires extensive renovation (which is different to what was initially thought). The agents say initially it was thought to be a simpler issue but now after contractors recently visited, there needs to be a more extensive check of the flooring and walls and likely replacement.
The tenant does not dispute the tenancy is currently uninhabitable.
Having seen the photos and heard the evidence that the premises is still uninhabitable, the tenancy must be terminated. I have given some time for the tenant to remove his belongings from the property and terminate the tenancy to take effect at the end of Thursday 22 June 2023.
The landlord is also seeking compensation for what he considers the tenant being time wasting and making a frivolous application. In effect this is a defence to the tenant’s claim and is considered within the tenant’s application. The application for compensation by the agents on this ground is dismissed.
During the hearing the matter of the bond was raised. I initially referred to the bond as belonging to the tenant and being released at the end of the tenancy. The agents referred to staining of the carpet that may affect the amount of bond that would be released. This tenancy ends at the end of Thursday 22 June 2023, the tenant is reminded to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
If there is issue with the bond, either party can seek mediation or apply to the Tribunal.
Both parties have had some measure of success, but neither have had substantial success of their claim. Therefore the filing fee is not reimbursed to either party.
Both parties have sought name suppression and have had a measure of success.
Having considered the factors in this case where there have been allegations that are not proved and being mindful there has been a disaster that has had an impact on both parties, the Tribunal exercises its discretion and considers there is no public interest in the names of the parties and details of the tenancy and grants suppression as sought. Section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541282 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541282 — Healthy homes

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