What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4571169 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 4571169?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Electricity (Consent: $2,522.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4571169?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4571169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9428931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4571169 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 4571169?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Electricity (Consent: $2,522.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4571169?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4571169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9428931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4571169 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4571169 — net $1,202.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (consent	$380.00		Rent arrears (consent
Electricity (consent	$2,522.12		Electricity (consent
Compensation		$200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,902.12	$1,700.00
Net award	$1,202.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,202.12

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. Neither party may disclose or publish any parts of this order verbally or on any medium.
The tenancy of Tauera Roberts at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 on Sunday 1 October 2023.
Tauera Roberts must pay [The landlord/s] $1,202.12 immediately, as calculated below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by counsel. Background
The tenancy agreement records the start of the tenancy as 15 November 2022.
The parties seem to have generally got on well during the tenancy, but the relationship deteriorated, and each has applied to the Tribunal because they could not agree how to resolve the issues that have arisen between them.
While there are several matters in dispute, I explained to the parties that the Tribunal could only deal with the issues set out in their applications, not with the more general complaints they each have against the other.
The tenant has applied for compensation for a 2-week period of restricted water supply due to repairs to the well and pump, and for exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The landlord has applied for a possession order based on a notice to terminate the tenancy because she needs the premises as her principal place of residence. The landlord also seeks an order for rent arrears and electricity costs. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises? •Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and electricity costs? •Should the tenant receive compensation for having a restricted water supply? •Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS? If so, should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises?

The landlord, via her lawyer, served written notice to terminate the tenancy under section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on 15 March 2023.
Before that, on 3 March 2023, the tenant gave 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. He says he later rescinded that notice, but not before the landlord accepted the notice he gave. Even if he did rescind the notice he gave, the landlord’s written notice was validly given.
Although the tenant queried whether the landlord required the premises as her principal place of residence when the notice was given, I am satisfied from her affidavit evidence that the notice was given for a genuine reason and that she did require the premises (and still does) as her principal place of residence in a manner that complies with section 51(1)(a) RTA.
I have therefore terminated the tenancy. I have granted the landlord possession in just under 2 weeks’ time so that the tenant has time to find somewhere else to live.
The tenant will remain liable for rent until he vacates the tenancy.

Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and electricity costs?

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for rent arrears and for electricity costs. I allow those claims by consent. Should the tenant receive compensation for having a restricted water supply?
The tenant described how for a 2-week period he had a restricted water supply due to repairs to the pump and well that he accepts were necessary repairs. He said there was a limited supply, but he had to shower elsewhere and fill up water for his own use.
The landlord said she was able to fill the header tank each day when she came to the property (she runs a small business from an adjoining site) and she believed the header tank was sufficient for the tenant’s use while the repairs were being done.
The tenant lived in the premises. I accept his evidence that his supply of water for the period in question was limited and he experienced inconvenience as a result.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from either a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities or some other event (as in this case, necessary repairs causing a restricted water supply) that results in a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
I accept that the tenant experienced a loss of enjoyment and inconvenience arising from the restricted supply of water to the premises for a 2-week period. I award the tenant compensation of $200.00 for that. Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS? If so, should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?
The tenant did not produce any objective evidence to prove all the alleged breaches of the HHS (such as the heating standard). But I am satisfied that the premises did not comply with the HHS.
There was no installed extraction fan in the kitchen. A rangehood was available but not mounted and installed. The landlord said that the tenant was ‘fine’ with the tenancy and agreed to install the rangehood himself. The tenant denied that.
A landlord has no defence to a claim for a breach of the HHS because a tenant might accept the premises as provided. Nor is it the tenant’s responsibility to install a rangehood.
Parliament enacted the HHS to ensure that the quality of New Zealand rental properties was improved and that they were warm, dry and draught free.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
I find that the landlord acted with intent by relying on the tenant’s suggestion (which is denied) that he would install the kitchen extraction fan. It was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that was done at the start of the tenancy.
The failure to fully comply with the HHS was against the tenant’s interests and against the public interest. Landlords are expected to comply with the provisions of the RTA in the public interest.
I make no finding on the other alleged breaches of the HHS because the tenant has not provided any objective evidence that the heating standard was not met, nor that there were other breaches.
The maximum amount that the Tribunal can award for a breach of the HHS (a breach of section 45(1A) RTA) is $7,200.00.
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,500.00. Result
The tenancy is terminated, and possession is granted to the landlord at 11.59pm on Sunday 1 October 2023.
The tenant will pay the landlord rent arrears of $380.00 and electricity costs of $2,522.12 by consent. From that will be deducted $200.00 which I have awarded to the tenant as compensation and $1,500.00 which I have awarded in exemplary damages.
I make no award of the filing fee as each party has been successful to an extent. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek a name suppression order. The landlord sought name suppression and is entitled to an order as her application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4571169 — net $1,202.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (consent	$380.00		Rent arrears (consent
Electricity (consent	$2,522.12		Electricity (consent
Compensation		$200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,902.12	$1,700.00
Net award	$1,202.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,202.12

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. Neither party may disclose or publish any parts of this order verbally or on any medium.
The tenancy of Tauera Roberts at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 on Sunday 1 October 2023.
Tauera Roberts must pay [The landlord/s] $1,202.12 immediately, as calculated below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by counsel. Background
The tenancy agreement records the start of the tenancy as 15 November 2022.
The parties seem to have generally got on well during the tenancy, but the relationship deteriorated, and each has applied to the Tribunal because they could not agree how to resolve the issues that have arisen between them.
While there are several matters in dispute, I explained to the parties that the Tribunal could only deal with the issues set out in their applications, not with the more general complaints they each have against the other.
The tenant has applied for compensation for a 2-week period of restricted water supply due to repairs to the well and pump, and for exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The landlord has applied for a possession order based on a notice to terminate the tenancy because she needs the premises as her principal place of residence. The landlord also seeks an order for rent arrears and electricity costs. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises? •Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and electricity costs? •Should the tenant receive compensation for having a restricted water supply? •Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS? If so, should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises?

The landlord, via her lawyer, served written notice to terminate the tenancy under section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on 15 March 2023.
Before that, on 3 March 2023, the tenant gave 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. He says he later rescinded that notice, but not before the landlord accepted the notice he gave. Even if he did rescind the notice he gave, the landlord’s written notice was validly given.
Although the tenant queried whether the landlord required the premises as her principal place of residence when the notice was given, I am satisfied from her affidavit evidence that the notice was given for a genuine reason and that she did require the premises (and still does) as her principal place of residence in a manner that complies with section 51(1)(a) RTA.
I have therefore terminated the tenancy. I have granted the landlord possession in just under 2 weeks’ time so that the tenant has time to find somewhere else to live.
The tenant will remain liable for rent until he vacates the tenancy.

Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and electricity costs?

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for rent arrears and for electricity costs. I allow those claims by consent. Should the tenant receive compensation for having a restricted water supply?
The tenant described how for a 2-week period he had a restricted water supply due to repairs to the pump and well that he accepts were necessary repairs. He said there was a limited supply, but he had to shower elsewhere and fill up water for his own use.
The landlord said she was able to fill the header tank each day when she came to the property (she runs a small business from an adjoining site) and she believed the header tank was sufficient for the tenant’s use while the repairs were being done.
The tenant lived in the premises. I accept his evidence that his supply of water for the period in question was limited and he experienced inconvenience as a result.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from either a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities or some other event (as in this case, necessary repairs causing a restricted water supply) that results in a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
I accept that the tenant experienced a loss of enjoyment and inconvenience arising from the restricted supply of water to the premises for a 2-week period. I award the tenant compensation of $200.00 for that. Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS? If so, should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?
The tenant did not produce any objective evidence to prove all the alleged breaches of the HHS (such as the heating standard). But I am satisfied that the premises did not comply with the HHS.
There was no installed extraction fan in the kitchen. A rangehood was available but not mounted and installed. The landlord said that the tenant was ‘fine’ with the tenancy and agreed to install the rangehood himself. The tenant denied that.
A landlord has no defence to a claim for a breach of the HHS because a tenant might accept the premises as provided. Nor is it the tenant’s responsibility to install a rangehood.
Parliament enacted the HHS to ensure that the quality of New Zealand rental properties was improved and that they were warm, dry and draught free.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
I find that the landlord acted with intent by relying on the tenant’s suggestion (which is denied) that he would install the kitchen extraction fan. It was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that was done at the start of the tenancy.
The failure to fully comply with the HHS was against the tenant’s interests and against the public interest. Landlords are expected to comply with the provisions of the RTA in the public interest.
I make no finding on the other alleged breaches of the HHS because the tenant has not provided any objective evidence that the heating standard was not met, nor that there were other breaches.
The maximum amount that the Tribunal can award for a breach of the HHS (a breach of section 45(1A) RTA) is $7,200.00.
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,500.00. Result
The tenancy is terminated, and possession is granted to the landlord at 11.59pm on Sunday 1 October 2023.
The tenant will pay the landlord rent arrears of $380.00 and electricity costs of $2,522.12 by consent. From that will be deducted $200.00 which I have awarded to the tenant as compensation and $1,500.00 which I have awarded in exemplary damages.
I make no award of the filing fee as each party has been successful to an extent. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek a name suppression order. The landlord sought name suppression and is entitled to an order as her application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4571169 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4571169 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises?

Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and electricity costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises?

Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and electricity costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions