What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4608831 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 4608831?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608831?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9279184-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4608831 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 4608831?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608831?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9279184-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4608831 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608831 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS - heating	$3,000.00	Breach HHS - heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608831 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS - heating	$3,000.00	Breach HHS - heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
The claim for reduction of the fixed term tenancy is withdrawn.
Lpm Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by a property manager.
The tenant and her two young children moved into the tenancy premises in January 2023 and signed a fixed term tenancy agreement ending in January 2024. The parties agreed the tenant could move out early and the last day of the tenancy was 31 July. The tenants were without a heater for most of the tenancy, and the unit was cold and damp as a result. There were a number of maintenance issues during the tenancy, which the tenants found stressful and time consuming, and which impacted on their quiet enjoyment. The tenant’s application is for compensation, and exemplary damages because of breaches during the tenancy, including not lodging the bond within 23 working days and not completing maintenance. The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Was there a breach of the smoke alarms regulations? • Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the tenant get compensation and exemplary damages?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant claims the landlord breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The landlord provided a HHS certificate with the tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced.
The tenant has doubts as to whether the insulation standard has been met, because she received advice during the tenancy that the ceiling insulation had “been moved around”. This advice was not given in writing. The landlord provided a written statement from June 2022 which states the ceiling insulation complies with the requirements. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I find the landlord has the better evidence here which means the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant was also advised there was room to install a moisture barrier under the house. This advice was not provided in writing. The landlord provided a document in which a contractor said the underfloor was too low to install a barrier. I find the landlord has the better evidence here and the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
It is agreed evidence the landlord failed to comply with the HHS heating standard. The compliance date for the heating standard for this tenancy was 120 days of the tenancy start date (being a tenancy which commenced between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025). This means the compliance date for this tenancy was 8 May 2023. A heater was installed just before the tenant moved out at the end of July.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises. The landlord completed the heating calculation and said the living room needs a heater with a heating capacity of 2.9 KW.
The parties agree the heater which was finally installed in July is a 2.4 KW electric heater that is attached to the wall. This does not meet requirements under the HHS. The landlord said they were advised not to install the heat pump they ordered because drilling a hole in the brick exterior would compromise weather tightness. After this advice they were unable to buy a 2.9 KW heater. The best they could do was install the electric heater and they continue to look for other options. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act because it did not comply with the HHS.

Was there a breach of the smoke alarms regulations?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligation to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms. Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA requires that landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms made under section 138A.
I have checked the relevant regulations which require landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed. Smoke alarms must be working. They must be installed in every sleeping space, or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space. They must also be installed on each level of a multi-level dwelling. I find the one smoke alarm installed within three metres of the bedrooms in the one storey house complies with the rules.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. The tenant’s evidence about the smoke alarm was confusing. She said the existing alarm beeped and kept going off, so she had to take it down. She let the landlord know. She is not sure if this alarm was replaced. The landlord’s evidence is a new alarm was installed on 9 January 2023 and this was replaced once the tenant requested maintenance. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that there has a breach and this claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond?

It is agreed evidence the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time, which is within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
The landlord submitted that not lodging the bond was a genuine mistake. She said she did lodge the bond, but when she entered the bond payment into the landlord’s system it was linked with another tenant with a very similar name, and lodged. I find there was a breach of the duty to lodge the bond as required and the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord breached the family’s quiet enjoyment. She wants compensation and exemplary damages. The law says a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Exemplary damages can be ordered if there is harassment. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant submitted that she spent a lot of time during the tenancy identifying maintenance, requesting maintenance, liaising with the contractors about maintenance, issuing 14 day notices about the heater and maintenance, and filing a Tribunal application about maintenance. She said this extra “admin” was unnecessarily stressful and caused mental distress during the tenancy. She also said that for most of the tenancy the responses from the landlord were not empathetic.
The landlord agreed the tenant identified a lot of maintenance, and said this was surprising because there were very few maintenance requests made by the previous tenant, and everything worked when the house was inspected in January, before the tenant moved in. The landlord provided me with copies of all correspondence. With the exception of the heater, it seems to me that most maintenance requests were followed up promptly and the appropriate contractor booked.
The RTA does not require the landlord to provide a house with no maintenance issues. There is an obligation on landlords to provide tenancy premises in a reasonable condition, and an obligation on tenants to report maintenance. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that this house was provided in an unreasonable condition. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she found the process of reporting maintenance and dealing with contractors to be troubling and tiring. However, I am not persuaded the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment, and there was no harassment. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant get compensation and exemplary damages?

The tenant has claimed compensation and exemplary damages. She wants the rent paid during the tenancy to be refunded. As I explained at the hearing, even with the breaches to the heating standard the tenant and her family had shelter, somewhere to live as a family, and somewhere for all their belongings. The landlord submitted that it had already compensated the tenant by a rent credit of $560 at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also agreed the fixed term tenancy could end, and there is value in that as well. I find the tenant has not proved the need to further compensation. The claim for compensation is dismissed.
As to the bond, I need to consider whether the landlord acted intentionally when the bond was lodged in the wrong name. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500 where 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 19(2), Schedule 1A, and 109(3) RTA.
The landlord submitted the mistake was not realised until the tenancy was about to end, and she immediately fixed the mistake and lodged the bond under the right details. The tenant was not persuaded by this submission because she was sceptical about whether the mistake was made. However, I am persuaded by the landlord’s explanation because there has never been an order of exemplary damages made against her or the landlord for failing to lodge a bond. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed because I do not find the landlord acted intentionally.
Finally, there is the breach of the heating standard to consider. Breaching the obligation to provide heating is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA.
The same considerations apply. The landlord knew a new heater was required, and this fact was recorded on the tenancy agreement. It was discussed by email before the tenant moved in. As to intention, the landlord submitted there were delays in deciding on heating because the owner was overseas, and then staff were sick. The landlord assumed they could install a heat pump and were delayed again when they were advised not to drill though brick. Then they could not buy a 2.9KW heater, and supplies for the 2.4KW heater were hard to find, all causing delay.
I am not persuaded the landlord managed this process effectively. The shortage of heating appliances is something landlords have been managing since the HHS standards were introduced. There are known delays for installing heat pumps. I’m not sure how a heat pump was ordered and delivered before the landlord realised that drilling through the brick would be problematic. It seems most likely to me the landlord made the decisions about heating too late. I find that choosing to wait was an intentional act.
The tenant’s submission about the effect for her and her two small children was heartfelt and credible. She should have had a compliant heater for the last three months of the tenancy. She said the house was cold and damp during that time. The bathroom and a bedroom were mouldy. She bought a dehumidifier and removed 22 litres of water from the house every 30 hours. She could not afford to buy a heater as well as a dehumidifier. She was sick and she missed classes and study as a result. Her children were sick. She said it was disheartening to have to chase the landlord for information about heating, only to be disappointed by more delays. She reached the point where she could not live in the house any more, and chose to move rather than wait for the landlord to meet the heating standard.
It is in tenants’ interests that houses can be heated. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when the RTA is breached. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $3,000. This is towards the middle of the scale because of the effect on the tenant, and because I am not aware of similar orders against the landlord. Other matters
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party.
The tenant did not request the bond to be refunded because this application was filed during the tenancy. The landlord advised at the hearing that it will be making a claim against the bond. It seems to me the bond can be refunded once the second application is heard.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608831 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608831 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Was there a breach of the smoke alarms regulations?

Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the tenant get compensation and exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Was there a breach of the smoke alarms regulations?

Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the tenant get compensation and exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions