What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4641551 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 4641551?

Compensation: Asbestos Testing: $80.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Items not compensated…: $780.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641551?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9630164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4641551 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 4641551?

Compensation: Asbestos Testing: $80.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Items not compensated…: $780.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641551?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9630164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4641551 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641551 — net $2,380.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Items not compensated for	$780.00	Items not compensated for
Compensation: Asbestos testing	$80.50	Asbestos testing
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,380.94
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,380.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of tenant’s name and identifying details.
Compassion Housing Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,380.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Items not compensated for $780.00 Compensation: Asbestos testing $80.50 Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment $1,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,380.94
The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties were represented by counsel.
[The tenant/s] has applied for exemplary damages and compensation for asbestos related events during his tenancy. He has also requested an order for the landlord to pay the filing fee for this application. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s], through counsel, has requested the Tribunal to make orders for exemplary damages. The claim is that the landlord committed unlawful acts relating to the asbestos which contaminated [The tenant/s]’s unit. Section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Counsel for [The tenant/s] has submitted that the landlord breached section 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2015, and section 29 and 30 of the Health Act 1956. A breach of section 45(1)(c) RTA is an unlawful act. Section 109(1) RTA provides for the Tribunal to order a party to pay exemplary damages for unlawful acts. Schedule 1A sets out the maximum amounts for unlawful acts.
Having considered the evidence and in particular the dates of events and the date of the Tribunal application, it is apparent that I do not have jurisdiction to make an order for exemplary damages in this case. That is because section 109(2)(b) RTA applies in this case. Section 109(2) sets out when a tenant or landlord may not apply for exemplary damages. (2) A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a) 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i)an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii)a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b)12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
The date of commission of the unlawful act arising from the breach of Section 45(1)(c) was when the uplifting of the vinyl took place in [The tenant/s]’s unit in a manner that breached provisions in the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2015, and the Health Act 1956. That was on or about 4 April 2022. The application to the Tribunal was made on 27 July 2023. The application was more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act.
Even if the commission of the unlawful act was determined to be the date when [The tenant/s] discovered the unit was contaminated, that would still be outside the twelve months for an application for exemplary damages. [The tenant/s] had received asbestos test results on 6 May 2022 and the landlord had been sent an Improvement Notice from WorkSafe on 18 July 2022. Both dates are outside the twelve month period prior to 27 July 2023. The health impact of the lifting of the vinyl and subsequent nuisance began before 27 July 2022.
For the reasons given above, I do not have jurisdiction to make an order for exemplary damages. Compensation for stress
[The tenant/s] has also applied for compensation for stress and loss of items of sentimental value. The Tribunal can make orders where a tenant’s quit enjoyment of the premises has been disturbed.
Section 38 RTA provides that a landlord must not breach a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Section 38(2) RTA states that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. .
The asbestos event that took place at [The tenant/s]’s unit had a significant impact on his peace and comfort from the time he suspected that he was living with asbestos dust to the time it was remedied. He has requested an order for stress for the event. The landlord did not intend that [The tenant/s] be placed in that position. But it was unavoidable that [The tenant/s]’s peace and comfort would be affected as he stressed about such things as the impact on his health and wellbeing due to the exposure once it happened. While it may be that [The tenant/s]’s health has not been affected by the asbestos dust, (not all exposure to asbestos create health issues for people) he has had the worry that it might. I have taken that seriously. To date the landlord has not paid compensation based on section 38(2) RTA. I also accept that some items that were removed or destroyed because of asbestos contamination had sentimental value because of their family connection. I have determined that $1,500.00 is reasonable compensation for the breach of [The tenant/s]’s quiet enjoyment of his premises including the disappointment associated with the sentimental loss of belongings. Compensation for loss of goods.
[The tenant/s] has applied for compensation for items that the landlord has not reimbursed him for to date. These include a sleeping bag, chilly bin, DVDs, and ergonomic cushion, and a dented fridge freezer. He has valued the loss at $1,788.74.
Before addressing that claim I should say that the landlord has been generous with the compensation paid for items that [The tenant/s] claimed after the event. He has been paid $3,848.00 for those items. That is the cost of replacing old for new. The landlord also did the right thing in paying for alternative accommodation and abating the rent. [The tenant/s] did not initially claim from the landlord for a sleeping bag, chilly bin, DVDs, and ergonomic cushion, and a dented fridge freezer.
I accept that [The tenant/s] has had an additional loss regarding some items he has owned. To substantiate his loss he has provided details of the cost of replacing old items with new items. The Tribunal cannot order new for old because that is betterment. The Tribunal can only order that a person be put in the position they would have been if the loss had not occurred. The ideal is that an order places a person in a position that they are no better or worse off.
There is little detail in [The tenant/s]’s claim about the age and condition of items he owned that he is claiming. There are no receipts for purchases. There is no report or photo of damage to the freezer. Some might suggest that there is insufficient evidence for any order for these items. However I have assessed the claim and am satisfied that an order of $780.00 is reasonable in view of the evidence and submissions made from the parties. This includes $200.00 compensation for the aesthetic change to the fridge/freezer. Asbestos testing fee
[The tenant/s] has claimed $80.50 reimbursement of the asbestos testing fee he initially paid. The landlord agreed that it should reimburse him for that cost. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order name suppression of a party. It is in the public interest for a matter such as this to be brought to the Tribunal. Tenants should not be concerned that their name will be published if they fail. Although the tenant has not been substantially successful with the application it is in the public interest for the tenant’s name to be suppressed. The tenant’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Costs
Counsel for the applicant has asked for time to consider whether to apply for costs following the issuing of this decision. Counsel will inform the Tribunal by 17 November whether time is needed for a costs application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641551 — net $2,380.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Items not compensated for	$780.00	Items not compensated for
Compensation: Asbestos testing	$80.50	Asbestos testing
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$1,500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,380.94
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,380.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of tenant’s name and identifying details.
Compassion Housing Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,380.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Items not compensated for $780.00 Compensation: Asbestos testing $80.50 Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment $1,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,380.94
The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties were represented by counsel.
[The tenant/s] has applied for exemplary damages and compensation for asbestos related events during his tenancy. He has also requested an order for the landlord to pay the filing fee for this application. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s], through counsel, has requested the Tribunal to make orders for exemplary damages. The claim is that the landlord committed unlawful acts relating to the asbestos which contaminated [The tenant/s]’s unit. Section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Counsel for [The tenant/s] has submitted that the landlord breached section 10 of the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2015, and section 29 and 30 of the Health Act 1956. A breach of section 45(1)(c) RTA is an unlawful act. Section 109(1) RTA provides for the Tribunal to order a party to pay exemplary damages for unlawful acts. Schedule 1A sets out the maximum amounts for unlawful acts.
Having considered the evidence and in particular the dates of events and the date of the Tribunal application, it is apparent that I do not have jurisdiction to make an order for exemplary damages in this case. That is because section 109(2)(b) RTA applies in this case. Section 109(2) sets out when a tenant or landlord may not apply for exemplary damages. (2) A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a) 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i)an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii)a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b)12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
The date of commission of the unlawful act arising from the breach of Section 45(1)(c) was when the uplifting of the vinyl took place in [The tenant/s]’s unit in a manner that breached provisions in the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2015, and the Health Act 1956. That was on or about 4 April 2022. The application to the Tribunal was made on 27 July 2023. The application was more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act.
Even if the commission of the unlawful act was determined to be the date when [The tenant/s] discovered the unit was contaminated, that would still be outside the twelve months for an application for exemplary damages. [The tenant/s] had received asbestos test results on 6 May 2022 and the landlord had been sent an Improvement Notice from WorkSafe on 18 July 2022. Both dates are outside the twelve month period prior to 27 July 2023. The health impact of the lifting of the vinyl and subsequent nuisance began before 27 July 2022.
For the reasons given above, I do not have jurisdiction to make an order for exemplary damages. Compensation for stress
[The tenant/s] has also applied for compensation for stress and loss of items of sentimental value. The Tribunal can make orders where a tenant’s quit enjoyment of the premises has been disturbed.
Section 38 RTA provides that a landlord must not breach a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Section 38(2) RTA states that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. .
The asbestos event that took place at [The tenant/s]’s unit had a significant impact on his peace and comfort from the time he suspected that he was living with asbestos dust to the time it was remedied. He has requested an order for stress for the event. The landlord did not intend that [The tenant/s] be placed in that position. But it was unavoidable that [The tenant/s]’s peace and comfort would be affected as he stressed about such things as the impact on his health and wellbeing due to the exposure once it happened. While it may be that [The tenant/s]’s health has not been affected by the asbestos dust, (not all exposure to asbestos create health issues for people) he has had the worry that it might. I have taken that seriously. To date the landlord has not paid compensation based on section 38(2) RTA. I also accept that some items that were removed or destroyed because of asbestos contamination had sentimental value because of their family connection. I have determined that $1,500.00 is reasonable compensation for the breach of [The tenant/s]’s quiet enjoyment of his premises including the disappointment associated with the sentimental loss of belongings. Compensation for loss of goods.
[The tenant/s] has applied for compensation for items that the landlord has not reimbursed him for to date. These include a sleeping bag, chilly bin, DVDs, and ergonomic cushion, and a dented fridge freezer. He has valued the loss at $1,788.74.
Before addressing that claim I should say that the landlord has been generous with the compensation paid for items that [The tenant/s] claimed after the event. He has been paid $3,848.00 for those items. That is the cost of replacing old for new. The landlord also did the right thing in paying for alternative accommodation and abating the rent. [The tenant/s] did not initially claim from the landlord for a sleeping bag, chilly bin, DVDs, and ergonomic cushion, and a dented fridge freezer.
I accept that [The tenant/s] has had an additional loss regarding some items he has owned. To substantiate his loss he has provided details of the cost of replacing old items with new items. The Tribunal cannot order new for old because that is betterment. The Tribunal can only order that a person be put in the position they would have been if the loss had not occurred. The ideal is that an order places a person in a position that they are no better or worse off.
There is little detail in [The tenant/s]’s claim about the age and condition of items he owned that he is claiming. There are no receipts for purchases. There is no report or photo of damage to the freezer. Some might suggest that there is insufficient evidence for any order for these items. However I have assessed the claim and am satisfied that an order of $780.00 is reasonable in view of the evidence and submissions made from the parties. This includes $200.00 compensation for the aesthetic change to the fridge/freezer. Asbestos testing fee
[The tenant/s] has claimed $80.50 reimbursement of the asbestos testing fee he initially paid. The landlord agreed that it should reimburse him for that cost. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order name suppression of a party. It is in the public interest for a matter such as this to be brought to the Tribunal. Tenants should not be concerned that their name will be published if they fail. Although the tenant has not been substantially successful with the application it is in the public interest for the tenant’s name to be suppressed. The tenant’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Costs
Counsel for the applicant has asked for time to consider whether to apply for costs following the issuing of this decision. Counsel will inform the Tribunal by 17 November whether time is needed for a costs application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641551 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641551 — Tenancy dispute

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