What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4570462 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 4570462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570462?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9356545-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4570462 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 4570462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570462?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9356545-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4570462 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The claim for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy listed in the order made on 5 July 2023 is withdrawn and the claim is clarified as a claim for reduced rent.
The tenants’ claims for the smoke alarms, for disconnecting the power and gas, for the assignment, and for reduced rent are dismissed.
The landlords will either install a second smoke alarm or move the alarm on the storey with the bedrooms, so that they meet the requirement to be within three metres of all the bedrooms. This must be done/booked to be done by Friday 11 August 2023.
Two mattresses and a pillow must be cleaned and fitted with new mattress/pillow protectors. This must be done/booked to be done by Monday 14 August 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended this second hearing. Orders were made after the first hearing that the landlord pay $300 exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond. Full reasons were given in the order.
The tenants raised four additional concerns at the first hearing and I amended their claim. At the hearing today the tenants withdrew their claim for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy. Their claim was clarified as a claim that they are paying too much rent for the house because of significant issues that were not apparent when they signed the tenancy agreement. The landlords agreed this claim could be discussed and decided after the hearing today.
The tenants moved into the tenancy premises – a fully furnished four bedroom house – on 24 April 2023. The tenancy is for a fixed term, ending on 17 December 2023. The tenants pay $900 a week, which they think is too high because they are not able to fully use the house, furniture and the appliances. They are also concerned that the landlords have breached their obligations and they have claimed exemplary damages. The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a breach of the duty to provide working smoke alarms? • Was there a breach of the duty not to interfere with the supply of gas and electricity? • Was there a breach of the duty to provide information relating to an assignment? • Are the tenants paying a reasonable amount for the tenancy premises?

Was there a breach of the duty to provide working smoke alarms?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires landlords to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants tested the smoke alarms on 20 May 2023 and found one was not working at all and one needed the battery changed. They reported this to the landlord who installed a new smoke alarm on 25 May. The tenants’ submission is that the landlords neglected to check the alarms at the start of the tenancy. The landlords’ evidence is that the smoke alarms were tested before the tenants moved in and they both worked. This is the tenants claims to prove. I am not more persuaded by the tenants’ evidence. This means this part of the claim is not proved.
The tenants were concerned that there are three levels in the house and only two smoke alarms. Houses should have one smoke alarm on each storey. The standard form tenancy agreement signed by the parties states there is a requirement for one working smoke alarm on each storey, “even if no one sleeps there”. The landlords submitted that there are only two storeys, because the ceiling in the landing where a toilet and laundry are located is at the same level as the ceiling of the storey that has the bedrooms on it. This evidence was not disputed by the tenants. I find there is no requirement for the landlords to provide a smoke alarm for the landing with the laundry, and therefore there is no breach here.
The tenants were also concerned that the smoke alarm on the top level is not within three metres of all the bedrooms. The landlord agreed this is correct. The landlord will either install a second smoke alarm or move the alarm on that level to a place where it meets the requirement to be within three metres of all the bedrooms.
The tenants have asked for exemplary damages because of beaches relating to the smoke alarms. The landlords are in breach of the duty to have a smoke alarm within three metres of the four bedrooms. I find they have 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.
The landlords submitted that were not aware the smoke alarm was positioned incorrectly until after the tenants’ claim was amended. They have since investigated and conceded that while the alarm was installed outside the bedrooms, it probably did not meet the three metre requirement for two of the bedrooms because it was “about half a metre out”. The landlords said this would be rectified after the hearing, either by installing a second smoke alarm on that story or moving the one there to a more central location. The tenants have been affected by the breach because they have had to raise their concerns with the landlords, however the smoke alarm is within three meters of their bedroom, so they have been safe during the tenancy. It is in tenants’ interests that houses are safe and there is public interest in landlords providing smoke alarms.
I am not persuaded I should allow exemplary damages because the landlords provided smoke alarms, thought they had complied with the requirements and the tenants were protected even though one of the alarms needs to be moved. This claim is dismissed. Was there a breach of the duty not to interfere with the supply of gas and electricity?
The tenants claim the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises. This is because the tenancy agreement states the “tenant pays electricity and gas – landlord will pass on bills for prompt reimbursement”. I find the landlords additional clause overrides the usual requirement that tenants pay for the outgoings.
On 23 May 2023 the power and gas were disconnected by the power provider with no warning. This was distressing and happened at a difficult time for the tenants. They think the landlords acted in retaliation because the tenants were making demands. The tenants arranged for power and gas to be reconnected that day and have paid their own bills ever since.
The law says a landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. Exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 45(2), (2A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlords submitted the arrangement for power noted on the tenancy agreement was an oversight. On 24 April – the first day of the tenancy – one of the landlords arranged for the power and gas to be disconnected immediately. In fact, the supply continued for about a month before the power and gas was disconnected without warning. I am persuaded by the landlords’ evidence that the power was disconnected as the result of an instruction given on the first day of the tenancy, not as an intentional response to the tenants exercising their rights in May. I find there was no breach of section 45(2) RTA and the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the duty to provide information relating to an assignment?

The tenants decided they would not be able to live in the house and on 4 May 2023 they advised the landlords they wanted to assign the tenancy. The tenants submitted the landlords withheld important information about suitable replacement tenants, making it impossible for the tenants to proceed with an assignment.
Section 43B RTA states that a tenant may assign the tenancy, with the prior written consent of the landlord, and in accordance with any reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord. If a tenant makes a written request for the landlord’s consent to an assignment and the request identifies, and includes contact details for, the proposed assignee, the landlord must respond in writing to the request within a reasonable period of time. The landlord must not withhold consent unreasonably; or attach any unreasonable conditions to the consent.
The tenants did not want to waste anyone’s time. They asked the landlords to list any conditions/criteria for the proposed assignee. The landlords did give some guidelines, including same rent and same fixed term, a preference for tenants who would fit into the neighbourhood, and the need for reference and credit checks. I find these were reasonable conditions. I do not find there is a requirement in section 43B RTA to list all the conditions that will be considered in advance. Rather the section limits any conditions relied on by the landlord when making a decision to be “reasonable”. This claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants paying a reasonable amount for the tenancy premises?

The tenants submitted they were happy to pay $900 for the house when they signed up. However, they became aware of damage when they moved in, including water stains, scratches and dents. The dryer stopped working, the curtains in the master bedroom had a rip, and new filters for the HRV are still on order from Australia.
Further, they said the house and the appliances were not clean. They were horrified at the state of the mattresses and pillows. They arranged for an urgent clean, and undertook other cleaning themselves. I was provided with photos. The tenants want me to decide if $900 is too much for a house in this condition, and where they can only use one of the four bedrooms.
The landlords submitted they never promised a newly painted house, and the tenants saw the condition before they signed the tenancy agreement. They paid the $600 additional cleaning bill. They arranged a new mattress for the main bedroom. They do not agree that three of the bedrooms cannot be used. They also provided photos.
I have carefully considered the photos. Some additional cleaning was required at the start of the tenancy. The usual process is for the tenants to notify the landlords and for the landlords to arrange extra cleaning. Here the cleaning was done, and the tenants were reimbursed, achieving the same result.
The broken kick board in the kitchen is not sufficient damage to warrant a rent reduction. The rip in the curtain is not sufficient damage to warrant a rent reduction. There is no independent evidence the oven cannot be used.
The tenants have proved that two of the mattresses and a pillow were not in a reasonable condition and these should be cleaned and fitted with new mattress and pillow protectors. Otherwise all of the bedrooms can be used. I find this is not sufficient to warrant a rent reduction. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570462 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570462 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the duty to provide working smoke alarms?

Was there a breach of the duty to provide information relating to an assignment?

Are the tenants paying a reasonable amount for the tenancy premises?

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the duty to provide working smoke alarms?

Was there a breach of the duty to provide information relating to an assignment?

Are the tenants paying a reasonable amount for the tenancy premises?

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions