What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639651 about?

The tribunal order states: Raymond Anderson must pay [The landlord/s] $4,164.73 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4639651?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,887.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639651?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9769935-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639651 about?

The tribunal order states: Raymond Anderson must pay [The landlord/s] $4,164.73 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4639651?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,887.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639651?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9769935-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639651 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639651 — net $4,164.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 September 2023	$5,887.94	Rent arrears to 29 September 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,164.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,164.73

Order

Raymond Anderson must pay [The landlord/s] $4,164.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,743.65 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] as agent for O’Cloud Properties Ltd immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr [M] and Ms [T] represented the landlord.
Mr Anderson and his ex-partner had a tenancy of the premises for approximately five years. Rent under that tenancy was agreed at $420 per week. The tenancy ended when they gave notice to end it. Mr Anderson was then offered a new tenancy in his name only at a rent of $550 per week. Mr Anderson accepted the offer of a new tenancy and this tenancy commenced on 10 January 2023.
Mr Anderson’s tenancy ended on 29 September 2023 and the landlord claims rent to that date totalling $5,887.94, payment of the bond held by the Bond Centre for this tenancy ($1,743.65), and payment of the Tribunal application fee.
Mr Anderson did not dispute the amount of rent claimed. However, he filed a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages for failure by the landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards which he said resulted in the house being cold and mouldy. Mr Anderson also disputed the rent increase from $420.00 to $550.00 but he agreed to this when he entered into the new tenancy agreement and there was no evidence to support that this was more than the market rent payable for the tenancy.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

The Healthy Homes Standards provide detailed requirements for the provision of heating, adequate ventilation, drainage, minimising draughts and moisture ingress in rental properties. Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires landlord to comply with the Standards and a failure to do so may entitle the tenant to compensation. A failure to do so is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act.
On 2 August 2023, Mr Anderson had a healthy homes assessment completed by Hennie Croeser of Healthy Homes Inspections NZ Ltd. The report of the assessment states that the premises fail the healthy homes standards in three areas: moisture ingress and drainage; draught stopping; ventilation; and smoke alarms.
Mr Croeser states that the moisture ingress and drainage standard was not reached because “some drains/gutters are blocked by debris”. The ventilation standard was not reached because there were draughts caused by gaps around windows or doors, and there was a hole in the ductwork for kitchen extractor fan. The report also notes that the “fireplace appears to be loose in wall with broken panels” and the smoke alarms are not functioning.
The landlord disputes that the premises are not healthy home compliant. They said that the smoke alarms were not functioning because they had been knocked from the brackets holding them. They said that simply turned the alarms back into the brackets and the alarms worked.
The landlord engaged a builder, Mr Ben Grieve, to review the report and its findings. Mr Grieve inspected the premises and, in a report dated 2 August 2023, he records his findings. He states that although there was some debris in the gutters, they looked regularly cleaned out and the spouting appeared to be draining storm water to the downpipes and into stormwater drains. With respect to draught stopping he states that there are no draughts coming from the fire place (which is a wood burner not an open fire) and the wood burner was not lose as suggested by Mr Croeser. He said that the laundry window had gaps at the bottom sash from the inside but the window was tight to the frame on the outside and sealed against the exterior sill with no unreasonable gap present. He said that one door had a gap at the bottom, but this is an intentional gap constructed in the type of timber framed door to allow opening. Mr Grieve notes that the ducting for the kitchen extractor fan does have a hole but the ducting is enclosed by an MDF box which allows the extractor to vent to the outside. He also records that the smoke alarms were tested and functioning.
I find that Mr Anderson has not established that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards. I prefer Mr Grieves’s report over that of Mr Croeser. Mr Grieve is a qualified builder but there is there is no indication of the qualifications or expertise of Mr Croeser. Moreover, Mr Grieve gave evidence at the hearing and his evidence supported and elaborated on his report whereas Mr Croeser was not available to have his evidence tested. I also accept the landlord’s evidence that there are some issues with Mr Croeser’s report that cast doubt on its accuracy. For example, the report records that the floor of the premises is a concrete slab when it is a wooden floor; the report includes the statements regarding draughts under the “ventilation” heading; and it refers to “some windows or doors” requiring draught stopping but no detail is provided or reference to which doors or windows require remediation.
Both Mr Grieve and Mr Croeser identified the hole in the kitchen ducting but this is a maintenance or repair issue and I note that the landlord has subsequently had the ducting replaced.
Mr Anderson also claims that there is a lose brick on the outside of the house by the entrance door which he claims is causing draughts inside the house. He also claims that there is no gib board behind the dishwasher and this would also be a source of draughts.
I am not satisfied that Mr Anderson has established that either the lose brick or the dishwasher not having gib board behind it is a source of draughts or does not comply with any regulations or standards. Mr Grieve in his evidence confirmed that a lose brick would not cause any draughts or issues inside the house and I accept the landlord’s evidence that even if there was no gib board behind the dishwasher there was a kick board underneath it that would prevent any draughts.
Mr Anderson’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the healthy homes standards is therefore dismissed. Painting work
There was a dispute over whether the landlord owes Mr Anderson money for painting work that he completed in the bathroom at the premises. Mr Anderson was paid $200.00 for the work but he claims the landlord promised to pay him an additional $300.00 for the work which was to be deducted from the bond that Mr Anderson owed (WINZ eventually paid the full amount of the bond owed without any deduction). The landlord said that there was no discussion regarding paying Mr Anderson an additional $300.00 for the work as claimed.
I prefer the landlords’ evidence on this point. It is supported by an email dated 14 April 2023 in which Ms [T] asks Mr Anderson to send an invoice for the work to seal and paint the bathroom ceiling. Mr Anderson issued an invoice dated 18 April 2023 for $200.00 for “bathroom plaster and paint” including materials and there is no mention on the invoice that it is not the full amount due for the work.
I therefore find that Mr Anderson has not established that the landlords owe him an additional $300.00 claimed for the bathroom painting work. Suppression
The landlord applied, in its application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlord has been substantially successful in its claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s names and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639651 — net $4,164.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 September 2023	$5,887.94	Rent arrears to 29 September 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,164.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,164.73

Order

Raymond Anderson must pay [The landlord/s] $4,164.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,743.65 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] as agent for O’Cloud Properties Ltd immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr [M] and Ms [T] represented the landlord.
Mr Anderson and his ex-partner had a tenancy of the premises for approximately five years. Rent under that tenancy was agreed at $420 per week. The tenancy ended when they gave notice to end it. Mr Anderson was then offered a new tenancy in his name only at a rent of $550 per week. Mr Anderson accepted the offer of a new tenancy and this tenancy commenced on 10 January 2023.
Mr Anderson’s tenancy ended on 29 September 2023 and the landlord claims rent to that date totalling $5,887.94, payment of the bond held by the Bond Centre for this tenancy ($1,743.65), and payment of the Tribunal application fee.
Mr Anderson did not dispute the amount of rent claimed. However, he filed a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages for failure by the landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards which he said resulted in the house being cold and mouldy. Mr Anderson also disputed the rent increase from $420.00 to $550.00 but he agreed to this when he entered into the new tenancy agreement and there was no evidence to support that this was more than the market rent payable for the tenancy.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

The Healthy Homes Standards provide detailed requirements for the provision of heating, adequate ventilation, drainage, minimising draughts and moisture ingress in rental properties. Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires landlord to comply with the Standards and a failure to do so may entitle the tenant to compensation. A failure to do so is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act.
On 2 August 2023, Mr Anderson had a healthy homes assessment completed by Hennie Croeser of Healthy Homes Inspections NZ Ltd. The report of the assessment states that the premises fail the healthy homes standards in three areas: moisture ingress and drainage; draught stopping; ventilation; and smoke alarms.
Mr Croeser states that the moisture ingress and drainage standard was not reached because “some drains/gutters are blocked by debris”. The ventilation standard was not reached because there were draughts caused by gaps around windows or doors, and there was a hole in the ductwork for kitchen extractor fan. The report also notes that the “fireplace appears to be loose in wall with broken panels” and the smoke alarms are not functioning.
The landlord disputes that the premises are not healthy home compliant. They said that the smoke alarms were not functioning because they had been knocked from the brackets holding them. They said that simply turned the alarms back into the brackets and the alarms worked.
The landlord engaged a builder, Mr Ben Grieve, to review the report and its findings. Mr Grieve inspected the premises and, in a report dated 2 August 2023, he records his findings. He states that although there was some debris in the gutters, they looked regularly cleaned out and the spouting appeared to be draining storm water to the downpipes and into stormwater drains. With respect to draught stopping he states that there are no draughts coming from the fire place (which is a wood burner not an open fire) and the wood burner was not lose as suggested by Mr Croeser. He said that the laundry window had gaps at the bottom sash from the inside but the window was tight to the frame on the outside and sealed against the exterior sill with no unreasonable gap present. He said that one door had a gap at the bottom, but this is an intentional gap constructed in the type of timber framed door to allow opening. Mr Grieve notes that the ducting for the kitchen extractor fan does have a hole but the ducting is enclosed by an MDF box which allows the extractor to vent to the outside. He also records that the smoke alarms were tested and functioning.
I find that Mr Anderson has not established that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards. I prefer Mr Grieves’s report over that of Mr Croeser. Mr Grieve is a qualified builder but there is there is no indication of the qualifications or expertise of Mr Croeser. Moreover, Mr Grieve gave evidence at the hearing and his evidence supported and elaborated on his report whereas Mr Croeser was not available to have his evidence tested. I also accept the landlord’s evidence that there are some issues with Mr Croeser’s report that cast doubt on its accuracy. For example, the report records that the floor of the premises is a concrete slab when it is a wooden floor; the report includes the statements regarding draughts under the “ventilation” heading; and it refers to “some windows or doors” requiring draught stopping but no detail is provided or reference to which doors or windows require remediation.
Both Mr Grieve and Mr Croeser identified the hole in the kitchen ducting but this is a maintenance or repair issue and I note that the landlord has subsequently had the ducting replaced.
Mr Anderson also claims that there is a lose brick on the outside of the house by the entrance door which he claims is causing draughts inside the house. He also claims that there is no gib board behind the dishwasher and this would also be a source of draughts.
I am not satisfied that Mr Anderson has established that either the lose brick or the dishwasher not having gib board behind it is a source of draughts or does not comply with any regulations or standards. Mr Grieve in his evidence confirmed that a lose brick would not cause any draughts or issues inside the house and I accept the landlord’s evidence that even if there was no gib board behind the dishwasher there was a kick board underneath it that would prevent any draughts.
Mr Anderson’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the healthy homes standards is therefore dismissed. Painting work
There was a dispute over whether the landlord owes Mr Anderson money for painting work that he completed in the bathroom at the premises. Mr Anderson was paid $200.00 for the work but he claims the landlord promised to pay him an additional $300.00 for the work which was to be deducted from the bond that Mr Anderson owed (WINZ eventually paid the full amount of the bond owed without any deduction). The landlord said that there was no discussion regarding paying Mr Anderson an additional $300.00 for the work as claimed.
I prefer the landlords’ evidence on this point. It is supported by an email dated 14 April 2023 in which Ms [T] asks Mr Anderson to send an invoice for the work to seal and paint the bathroom ceiling. Mr Anderson issued an invoice dated 18 April 2023 for $200.00 for “bathroom plaster and paint” including materials and there is no mention on the invoice that it is not the full amount due for the work.
I therefore find that Mr Anderson has not established that the landlords owe him an additional $300.00 claimed for the bathroom painting work. Suppression
The landlord applied, in its application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlord has been substantially successful in its claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639651 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639651 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions