What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4595332 about?

The tribunal order states: Crockers Property Management Limited - Park Tower As Agent For Tmf Grafton

How much money was awarded in case 4595332?

Compensation: Failing to provide Hea…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heating: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595332?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9602190-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4595332 about?

The tribunal order states: Crockers Property Management Limited - Park Tower As Agent For Tmf Grafton

How much money was awarded in case 4595332?

Compensation: Failing to provide Hea…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heating: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595332?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9602190-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4595332 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4595332 — net $870.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Heating	$750.00	Heating
Compensation: Failing to provide Healthy Homes Information	$100.00	Failing to provide Healthy Homes Information
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$870.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$870.44

Order

Crockers Property Management Limited - Park Tower As Agent For Tmf Grafton Limited James Cowen and Crockers Property Management Limited - Park Tower As Agent For Tmf Grafton Limited Sam Mcgarry must pay [The tenant/s] $870.44 immediately.
The tenant’s claims for heating and the Healthy Homes Statement is allowed.
The remaining claims by the tenant are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is an application by the tenant in respect his boarding house tenancy agreement.
The boarding house is a large one with approximately 300 occupants occupying rooms over 11 levels. The respondent manages the boarding house and has a property manager on site.
The tenant makes a number of claims against the landlord and seeks compensation as follows: a. No heating b. No provision for washing clothes pursuant to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 c. Problematic lift d. Washing machines overcharging e. Room change fee imposed by landlord f. Fees charged for extra person in room g. Landlord failing to provide details of the property’s level of Healthy Homes compliance h. Lost property obligation i. Lock out fee.
The tenant also makes an application in respect of the House Rules: a. Lost property b. Heaters in rooms c. No parties d. No swearing e. Extra cleaning fee f. The use of facilities on other levels of the building g. Keeping common areas clean h. Sleeping in common areas i. Alcohol in media room j. Lost key card fee k. Lock out fee l. Alcohol restriction from 4pm to 9pm in the living room m. Prohibit media room use from 11pm to 6am. The lift
There are two lifts in the building. The tenant says that one of the lifts is problematic and on occasions traps people inside the lift. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that he has never been trapped inside the lift. The landlord states as follows: that the Park Tower lifts were installed in mid-2022. They have been problematic since. Between January and June 2022 [Lift Company] have attended 15 times to investigate issues with the lift. The second lift has failed numerous times and [Lift Company] were unable to rectify. The landlord had the lift turned off on 24 February. As a result of the [City] floods [Lift Company] were swamped with work and were unable to commit to a timeframe. In early May [Lift Company] replaced the lift drive unit. It then turned out that this was not the source of the problem. A staff change then occurred at [Lift Company]. The landlord met with their management on 26 May to resolve issues. The landlord advised that the parts were on back order from [Lift Company] in China. The tenant has suffered no loss as a result of this issue and therefore the claim is dismissed. The heater
The tenant claims that the heater in his room does not work and has never worked. The heater is an old oil filled wall heater. During the hearing the landlord explained that numerous attempts have been undertaken to fix the heater which have all been unsuccessful. The landlord offered the tenant a reduction in rent of $20.00 per week. This was rejected by the tenant who believed that a more reasonable reduction was $40.00 per week. The landlord also accepts the claim that the heater is not working and to date is unable to be fixed. The difficulty is that the tenant has a room which he cannot heat. The wall heater is not functional, and tenants are not permitted to have their own heaters in their room due to fire regulations. Housing Improvement Regulations
The tenant claims that pursuant to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 accommodation must provide provisions for washing clothes. There are washing machines provided thus satisfying this requirement. Tenants are required to pay for use of the washing machines at the rate of $4 for a wash and $8 to use the dryer. Provisions have clearly been made for washing clothes. I can see no evidence which supports this claim and therefore this claim is dismissed. House Rules
The tenant says that the new rule relating to lost property places too much onus on tenants. He stated that the House Rule should be changed back to the 48 hour rule. The landlord stated that there is a dedicated lost property section in a storeroom on level 3. Any lost property handed in to reception is placed in the secure storeroom for safe keeping. Washing Machine fee
The tenant says that sometimes the washing machines charge twice. Tenants pay for use of the machine by way of an EFTPPOS terminal attached to the washing machine. During the hearing the tenant confirmed that he had never been overcharged. He stated that his friends have been over charged. The landlord stated that sometimes the machines will not recognise the electronic instruction from the EFTPOS terminal. The landlord further stated that when an error takes place and it’s brought to the attention of the property manager they will do their best to resolve the issue straightaway by applying a credit to the tenant’s account. The tenant referred to an email dated 14 March 2023 where the landlord stated that ‘at the moment we are unable to refund the double charges’. The landlord replied confirming that most people have now been credited. Given that the tenant has never been overcharged it is my view that he has not suffered loss as a result of this. Room change fee
The tenant objects to the room change fee allegedly imposed by the landlord. The tenant says that a fee of $90.00 to change rooms is far too high. The landlord replied stating that no such fee has been introduced yet and to date has never been charged. The landlord did state that if a tenant changes rooms then there is administration time involved in this (for example, preparing a new Tenancy Agreement). The tenant has not changed rooms and again has not suffered loss as a result of this yet-to-be-imposed fee. Extra person charge
The tenant says that an extra person charge imposed by the landlord is discriminatory to married people. During the hearing the landlord took offence to the discrimination allegation. The landlord explained that by charging an extra $80.00 (including GST) they are merely covering their costs of having an extra person in a room (costs such as extra power, internet usage, etc). Healthy Homes Statement
The tenant says that the Agreement is deficient in respect of the Healthy Homes Statement. He says that that the insulation and Healthy Homes Statement in the Agreement does not include details of the property’s current level of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards pursuant to regulations 34 – 39 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards). The landlord accepts this claim and explained that it was merely an oversight by the previous property manager.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not meet the Healthy Home Standards by failing to provide the room in a reasonable state of repair in respect of heating.
A landlord must • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair See sections 66I(1)(a) to (c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 66(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is my view that the landlord has not acted intentionally in this regard. From the evidence provided with the application it is plain to see that the landlord has done, and continues to do, everything possible to resolve the issue with the in- room heaters. That being said the tenant must be able to heat his room, especially in these colder months. If tenants are not allowed to bring their own heaters then an alternative heating system must be arranged by the landlord. Because I find that it is not an intentional act I do not award exemplary damages. I do however award compensation to reflect the breach of obligations by the landlord.
I also accept the tenant’s claim in respect of the Healthy Homes Statement. Again, from the viva voce evidence presented by the landlord during the hearing I accept that this was merely an oversight and because of this I award a small level of compensation to reflect this.
The claim by the tenant in respect of the House Rules is dismissed. The tenant sought a declaration that the landlord’s House Rules are unlawful and discriminatory. I do not accept this is the case. This claim is without merit. The landlord is managing 300 tenants and a large multi-level boarding house. Rules are vital to ensure the smooth and safe running of the boarding house, and so that the common areas and the building as a whole can be enjoyed by all residents.
The following claims by the tenant also dismissed: lost property obligation; the lock out fee; the lost card fee; the change room fee; the laundry fee and the claim relating to the extra person fee. These claims in my view are also baseless. As noted above the landlord is entitled to set its own fees based on its business operations.
Because [The applicant/s] has partially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4595332 — net $870.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Heating	$750.00	Heating
Compensation: Failing to provide Healthy Homes Information	$100.00	Failing to provide Healthy Homes Information
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$870.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$870.44

Order

Crockers Property Management Limited - Park Tower As Agent For Tmf Grafton Limited James Cowen and Crockers Property Management Limited - Park Tower As Agent For Tmf Grafton Limited Sam Mcgarry must pay [The tenant/s] $870.44 immediately.
The tenant’s claims for heating and the Healthy Homes Statement is allowed.
The remaining claims by the tenant are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is an application by the tenant in respect his boarding house tenancy agreement.
The boarding house is a large one with approximately 300 occupants occupying rooms over 11 levels. The respondent manages the boarding house and has a property manager on site.
The tenant makes a number of claims against the landlord and seeks compensation as follows: a. No heating b. No provision for washing clothes pursuant to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 c. Problematic lift d. Washing machines overcharging e. Room change fee imposed by landlord f. Fees charged for extra person in room g. Landlord failing to provide details of the property’s level of Healthy Homes compliance h. Lost property obligation i. Lock out fee.
The tenant also makes an application in respect of the House Rules: a. Lost property b. Heaters in rooms c. No parties d. No swearing e. Extra cleaning fee f. The use of facilities on other levels of the building g. Keeping common areas clean h. Sleeping in common areas i. Alcohol in media room j. Lost key card fee k. Lock out fee l. Alcohol restriction from 4pm to 9pm in the living room m. Prohibit media room use from 11pm to 6am. The lift
There are two lifts in the building. The tenant says that one of the lifts is problematic and on occasions traps people inside the lift. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that he has never been trapped inside the lift. The landlord states as follows: that the Park Tower lifts were installed in mid-2022. They have been problematic since. Between January and June 2022 [Lift Company] have attended 15 times to investigate issues with the lift. The second lift has failed numerous times and [Lift Company] were unable to rectify. The landlord had the lift turned off on 24 February. As a result of the [City] floods [Lift Company] were swamped with work and were unable to commit to a timeframe. In early May [Lift Company] replaced the lift drive unit. It then turned out that this was not the source of the problem. A staff change then occurred at [Lift Company]. The landlord met with their management on 26 May to resolve issues. The landlord advised that the parts were on back order from [Lift Company] in China. The tenant has suffered no loss as a result of this issue and therefore the claim is dismissed. The heater
The tenant claims that the heater in his room does not work and has never worked. The heater is an old oil filled wall heater. During the hearing the landlord explained that numerous attempts have been undertaken to fix the heater which have all been unsuccessful. The landlord offered the tenant a reduction in rent of $20.00 per week. This was rejected by the tenant who believed that a more reasonable reduction was $40.00 per week. The landlord also accepts the claim that the heater is not working and to date is unable to be fixed. The difficulty is that the tenant has a room which he cannot heat. The wall heater is not functional, and tenants are not permitted to have their own heaters in their room due to fire regulations. Housing Improvement Regulations
The tenant claims that pursuant to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 accommodation must provide provisions for washing clothes. There are washing machines provided thus satisfying this requirement. Tenants are required to pay for use of the washing machines at the rate of $4 for a wash and $8 to use the dryer. Provisions have clearly been made for washing clothes. I can see no evidence which supports this claim and therefore this claim is dismissed. House Rules
The tenant says that the new rule relating to lost property places too much onus on tenants. He stated that the House Rule should be changed back to the 48 hour rule. The landlord stated that there is a dedicated lost property section in a storeroom on level 3. Any lost property handed in to reception is placed in the secure storeroom for safe keeping. Washing Machine fee
The tenant says that sometimes the washing machines charge twice. Tenants pay for use of the machine by way of an EFTPPOS terminal attached to the washing machine. During the hearing the tenant confirmed that he had never been overcharged. He stated that his friends have been over charged. The landlord stated that sometimes the machines will not recognise the electronic instruction from the EFTPOS terminal. The landlord further stated that when an error takes place and it’s brought to the attention of the property manager they will do their best to resolve the issue straightaway by applying a credit to the tenant’s account. The tenant referred to an email dated 14 March 2023 where the landlord stated that ‘at the moment we are unable to refund the double charges’. The landlord replied confirming that most people have now been credited. Given that the tenant has never been overcharged it is my view that he has not suffered loss as a result of this. Room change fee
The tenant objects to the room change fee allegedly imposed by the landlord. The tenant says that a fee of $90.00 to change rooms is far too high. The landlord replied stating that no such fee has been introduced yet and to date has never been charged. The landlord did state that if a tenant changes rooms then there is administration time involved in this (for example, preparing a new Tenancy Agreement). The tenant has not changed rooms and again has not suffered loss as a result of this yet-to-be-imposed fee. Extra person charge
The tenant says that an extra person charge imposed by the landlord is discriminatory to married people. During the hearing the landlord took offence to the discrimination allegation. The landlord explained that by charging an extra $80.00 (including GST) they are merely covering their costs of having an extra person in a room (costs such as extra power, internet usage, etc). Healthy Homes Statement
The tenant says that the Agreement is deficient in respect of the Healthy Homes Statement. He says that that the insulation and Healthy Homes Statement in the Agreement does not include details of the property’s current level of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards pursuant to regulations 34 – 39 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards). The landlord accepts this claim and explained that it was merely an oversight by the previous property manager.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not meet the Healthy Home Standards by failing to provide the room in a reasonable state of repair in respect of heating.
A landlord must • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair See sections 66I(1)(a) to (c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 66(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is my view that the landlord has not acted intentionally in this regard. From the evidence provided with the application it is plain to see that the landlord has done, and continues to do, everything possible to resolve the issue with the in- room heaters. That being said the tenant must be able to heat his room, especially in these colder months. If tenants are not allowed to bring their own heaters then an alternative heating system must be arranged by the landlord. Because I find that it is not an intentional act I do not award exemplary damages. I do however award compensation to reflect the breach of obligations by the landlord.
I also accept the tenant’s claim in respect of the Healthy Homes Statement. Again, from the viva voce evidence presented by the landlord during the hearing I accept that this was merely an oversight and because of this I award a small level of compensation to reflect this.
The claim by the tenant in respect of the House Rules is dismissed. The tenant sought a declaration that the landlord’s House Rules are unlawful and discriminatory. I do not accept this is the case. This claim is without merit. The landlord is managing 300 tenants and a large multi-level boarding house. Rules are vital to ensure the smooth and safe running of the boarding house, and so that the common areas and the building as a whole can be enjoyed by all residents.
The following claims by the tenant also dismissed: lost property obligation; the lock out fee; the lost card fee; the change room fee; the laundry fee and the claim relating to the extra person fee. These claims in my view are also baseless. As noted above the landlord is entitled to set its own fees based on its business operations.
Because [The applicant/s] has partially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595332 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595332 — 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