How much money was awarded in case 4645297?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645297?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10245062-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4645297?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645297?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10245062-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4645297 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645297 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645297 — net $1,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation repairing obligations	$900.00	Compensation repairing obligations
Exemplary damages smoke alarms	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,920.44

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The Rent Shop Limited and Jeffrey Roben Martin must pay [The tenant/s] $1,920.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person. Ms Ouellette attended for the Rent Shop. Mr Martin did not attend. Hearing

The substantive hearing of this application took place on 11 March 2024.

Following an earlier hearing I issued an order on 16 October 2023 adding Mr Martin as a respondent to the tenant’s application and directing that he and the tenant attend the next hearing in person. I allowed the Rent Shop to attend by telephone.

Shortly before the substantive hearing was due to begin, the Rent Shop emailed the Tribunal requesting an adjournment on the ground that they and Mr Martin believed that the application had been withdrawn.

They referred to a letter from an Investigations Officer from Tenancy Services dated 22 January 2024. It is headed, “The outcome of the investigation we have completed for your property – warning letter”. It states, among other things, “We will not be taking any further action on these breaches at this point in time. However, your tenant may choose to do so through mediation or the Tenancy Tribunal”.

The tenant filed her application on 16 August 2023 and the parties had received my previous order and notice of the adjourned hearing date well before the letter from Tenancy Services.

I refused an adjournment. I find it difficult to comprehend how a professional property manager, well acquainted with the procedure of the Tenancy Tribunal, could confuse the conclusion of an investigation by Tenancy Services with proceedings in the Tribunal. The two are quite separate.

The letter from Tenancy Services itself expressly states that the tenant may choose to take the landlord’s breaches further through the Tribunal. The tenant had already done so and there was nothing from the Tribunal or from the tenant to indicate that her application was not proceeding or that the parties were not required to attend the hearing on 11 March. If the Rent Shop was uncertain about the implications of the letter, they should have contacted Tenancy Services or the Tribunal.

I therefore procced with the hearing and Ms Ouelette was available to attend by telephone for the Rent Shop.

Mr Martin may feel disadvantaged because the hearing proceeded without him being present, but I note that Tenancy Services has investigated and reported on the condition of the premises and there is a substantial amount of documentation including photographs. That and the fact that the Rent Shop managed the tenancy for Mr Martin, means that it is unlikely that he could have added much to the evidence to affect the outcome. Background

This tenancy began on 11 November 2022 and ended on 10 November 2024. The end date was both the end of the fixed term and the expiry of the landlord’s termination notice served on the ground that the landlord intended moving back into and selling the premises.

The landlord bought the premises in 2020 and lived in it until the tenancy began.

The Rent Shop was involved with the tenancy from the beginning and dealt with the tenancy agreement and the ingoing tenancy inspection and report.

The tenancy agreement came with the required information including healthy homes information. It stated that there was no insulation under the premises due to insufficient space and confirmed that the premises complied with healthy homes requirements.

The tenant filed her application on 2 August 2023 claiming compensation and exemplary damages mainly in relation to the condition of the premises. She also claims that the termination notice was retaliatory and that the landlord interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The landlord filed a cross application seeking possession based on the termination notice alternatively termination based on various breach notices that were served on the tenant.

The landlord withdrew his cross application after Tenancy Services discontinued its investigation. I note that the landlord knew to contact the Tribunal regarding the withdrawal, not Tenancy Services. The Relevant Law

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.

For a termination notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.

Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. Smoke Alarms

There was conflicting evidence regarding smoke alarms.

Tenancy Services, when it inspected on 13 September 2023, found that there was a working smoke alarm within 2 meters of two of the bedrooms in the premises. There was one in the middle of the lounge that had no battery and another one in an unconsented extension more than 2 meters away from the third bedroom. To be clear, that alarm was within 2 meters of the third bedroom but because it was in the extension, it was effectively outside the dwelling and so was not a compliant alarm for the third bedroom.

The tenancy agreement states that there was one smoke alarm in the premises within three metres of all bedrooms. Given the layout of the premises, that would be impossible.

The landlord said that the ingoing inspection found two smoke alarms and all three bedrooms had an alarm within two meters. The ingoing report contains photographs that support the presence of two alarms, one in the lounge and the other in the extension. There are no photographs showing an alarm in the hallway that could have been within 3 meters of the third bedroom.

The tenant said that when she moved into the premises there were only the two smoke alarms, one was within two meters of the two bedrooms and the other was out in the extension. She said that a friend pointed out to her that the alarms were not compliant. She said that she raised the issue with the Rent Shop in June and a handyman came in August to deal with the alarms and the draughts that she had also raised.

The evidence establishes that at the start of the tenancy there was a smoke alarm within 3 meters of two of the bedrooms, but none within 3 meters of the third bedroom. In August 2023, two additional smoke alarms were fitted one of which was within 3 meters of the third bedroom.

The Tenancy Services report states that the two new alarms were not compliant because they did not have long life batteries.

I find that the landlords did not fully comply with smoke alarm requirements. They should have ensured that all the bedrooms were covered by alarms. I find that to be an intentional breach because it was obvious or should have been obvious that the alarm in the extension was not an effective alarm for the third bedroom.

There was a partial failure to comply with the requirements and I accept that the one smoke alarm that was within 3 meters to two of the bedrooms would have provided significant protection for the third bedroom. The alarm in the extension would also have provided some protection from a fire in that area.

There should be an award of exemplary damages due to the importance of having the full protection provided by the regulations, but it should be at the lower end of the scale. An award of $1,000 is appropriate. Gaps and Draughts

The tenant said that she was not aware of the gaps and the draughts allowed by them until the weather started to turn colder in April or May 2023. She raised the problem with the Rent Shop in June.

The photographs show significant gaps around windows, doors and at the bottom of walls. They are well documented in the Tenancy Services report.

A contractor came to the premises in August and carried out some work to try to mitigate the effects of the gaps. This consisted mainly of fixing some sort of tape along the gaps to cover them. The tenant said that the tape did not stay fixed for long. On any view, taping over the gaps in that way was not an effective way to prevent draughts from the gaps.

Another problem resulting from the gaps was the incursion of vermin into the premises through the gaps. There were photographs of rat or mice droppings in the premises and areas which appear to have been chewed by rats or mice.

The premises internally were in good condition for their age. But there were structural defects. The piles were in poor condition. A contractor stated that it was unsafe to work under the house due to their condition. This resulted in the premises being out of level and no doubt that contributed to the existence of gaps.

I accept that the tenant did not complain about the gaps until June. She said that she had complained verbally to the Rent Shop before then, but that was denied. I must, in the circumstances, limit my consideration to the written complaints.

But some at least of the gaps should have been obvious to the landlords and the remedial work done in August was not adequate. I find that there has been a breach of the draught stopping standard. I consider remedy for the breach below. Drainage

The photographs show a downpipe disconnected from the guttering at the back beside the garage at the rear of the premises The tenant said that water pooled where water fell from the guttering there and it went into the garage where some of her belongings were stored. She said that some of her belongings, including a freezer and microwave were damaged. There is no specific claim for the loss of those items.

Having the downpipe discharging onto the ground is a clear breach of the drainage standard. I consider remedy below. Floor

There is evidence that the floor of the premises was uneven, unstable and insecure in places. The TS report describes walking across the floor, and it felt “soft” and like it could give way at any moment.

As I have said, the piles were in poor condition, walls were not plumb and prone to movement and the building felt like it moved when someone walked around in it. The tenant said that someone came to see if insulation could be installed under the house, and he said that there was sufficient space to install it, but it was not safe to do so because the house could collapse when someone was under it.

The condition of the floor constituted a breach by the landlords of their obligation to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Insulation

There is no dispute that insulation in the roof space was compliant. The issue with insulation under the house is whether it was reasonably practicable to install it there given the clearance between the floor and the ground.

There was no evidence of the height of the floor above the ground. Photographs show that the space is accessible, but it is not generous. It is not possible to determine from the photographs whether it is reasonably possible for a contractor to install insulation under the house.

The landlord’s evidence is that a contractor came to the premises at the end of the tenancy and informed them that it was not safe to install insulation under the house due to the lack of space.

Overall, I think it is likely that, at least for the most part, the space under the house was not accessible for the installation of insulation. Therefore, it was not reasonably practicable to install insulation there and there has therefore been no breach of the insulation requirements. Septic Tank

The tenant experienced a problem with the foul water drains backing up. This appears to have been due to the septic filling. The evidence did not prove that the landlord failed to empty the tank within a reasonable time of being made aware of the issue and so I find that there was no breach in this respect. Retaliatory Notice

The tenant relies on the fact that the landlord’s termination notice came immediately after she served a breach notice relating to the condition of the premises. She also said that the landlord had told her that he was looking to rent the premises long term and there was no mention of selling it.

Against that, the landlords said that they had discussed selling the house before the tenant’s breach notice. The landlord had wanted to travel to India to undertake charity work and had realised that selling the house was the only way to enable him to do that. There was an appraisal of the house for sale before the breach notice.

It is also relevant that the house is on the market for sale. The advertising photographs show it be well presented for sale.

I can’t be satisfied on the evidence that the landlord’s termination notice was motivated in whole or in part by the tenant’s breach notice. There is good evidence that the landlord had a genuine intention to sell before the notice was served. I note too that the expiry of the notice coincided with the end of the fixed term and so it could not have been served any earlier than that.

I find, therefore, that the claim for a retaliatory notice has not been proved. Quiet Enjoyment

The tenant claims that the landlords have interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises. There was no real evidence of that, and so this claim was not proved. Remedy

There were some problems with the premises, but they were not serious in terms of how they affected the tenant. As well, the tenant did not raise issues with the landlords until towards the end of the tenancy. The premises were, in most respects, comfortable and in good order.

In relation to the defects that have been proved and constituted breaches of the landlords’ obligations in respect of the condition of the premises, I find that they do not warrant an award of exemplary damages. An award of compensation will suffice.

The most serious defects, in my view, were the gaps that allowed draughts and vermin to enter. Other defects were relatively minor, but I accept that they detracted from the tenants’ enjoyment of the premises. An award of $900 is reasonable compensation for the impact of the defects on the tenant. Filing Fee

The tenant has had significant success and so I have awarded her the filing fee. Suppression

For the same reason, I have granted the tenant name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645297 — net $1,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation repairing obligations	$900.00	Compensation repairing obligations
Exemplary damages smoke alarms	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,920.44