What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4592454 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4592454?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4592454?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4592454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10748462-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4592454 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4592454?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4592454?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4592454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10748462-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4592454 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by his mother.

The hearing took place over two days – 23 rd May 2024 and 23 rd August 2024.

The tenancy was from 17 th August 2022 to 23 rd August 2023.

The tenant claimed that the premises did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). The tenant said that there was no kitchen window, no kitchen sink plug, no heat pump, no insulation, not soundproof and the internet was poor.

The rent was originally $500.00 per week. It was a granny flat downstairs with the landlord living upstairs.

The rent was adjusted to $480.00 from 13 th May 2023 after the tenant sought a rent reduction.

The tenant claimed that the appropriate rent should have been $450.00 per week and sought compensation of $2,320.00 for “over-paid rent” and an extra $280.00 for the lack of reasonable care the landlord had for the rental and lack of consideration for the issues raised including poor internet and poor television reception.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

As the tenant claimed that the premises was not HHS complaint, the landlord was tasked with providing an HHS report for the Tribunal.

The landlord provided an HHS report dated 25 th June 2024 proving that the premises was HHS compliant.

The tenant pointed out that there was no fixed heater or a rangehood when the tenant lived at the premises.

There was no dispute that tenant was provided with a 2.2kW heater during the tenancy but that it was not fixed to a wall. Also, instead of a rangehood, there was an extractor fan on the wall directly above the cooktop.

There is no evidence that the previous extractor fan was not complaint with the HHS ventilation standard. The heater was non-compliant due to it not being fixed to a wall, but it was the same heater used to meet the HHS heating requirement once fixed.

I acknowledge the confusion many landlords have in relation to the need for HHS compliance with granny flats. I do not find that there was any intentional breach of the HHS by the landlord.

In relation to the “over-paid rent” claim, the tenant had not provided any evidence that $450.00 was the correct market rent for the rented premises.

Furthermore, there was no evidence of any diminished internet or television reception from how they were when the tenant first signed up to the premises. The tenant had used an wi-fi booster for better wi-fi during the tenancy and it is not unusual for that especially if the downstairs is sharing the wi-fi from the router upstairs. There is no expectation of the downstairs area to be soundproof.

I do not find that the tenant has proven the market rent claim or any loss of use claim to the required standard.

Therefore, the tenant’s claims are dismissed.