What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4647852 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4647852?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Return of rent: Unlawful residential…: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647852?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9664550-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4647852 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4647852?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Return of rent: Unlawful residential…: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647852?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9664550-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

531 Brooklyn Valley Road, Brooklyn, Motueka 7198 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4647852 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4647852 — net $5,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Return of rent: Unlawful residential premises	$5,000.00	Return of rent: Unlawful residential premises
Net award	$5,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared in person. The tenants appeared via teleconference as pre-approved.
The tenant sought compensation of $10,527.26. The bond has already been returned to them by the landlord.
Separately, it became apparent from the application documentation the premises may be unlawful. This was raised. No exclusion of this tenancy under s 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) exists.
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful it may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
Where an order is made regarding an unlawful premises, that determination may encompass other tenant claims as factors to be considered, meaning the order made is based on s78A provisions but that order and any award is inclusive of the other tenant claims. I have adopted that approach here. Background
The tenancy commenced 13 November 2022. The premises was a recently converted shipping container that had been fitted out for off grid, domestic use. Electricity was via a solar array, inverter and battery. Bottled LPG provided fuel for the stove and hot water. Water, greywater and waste plumbing was connected. The tenants were the first occupants of the premises.
The landlord resides at the same address, a rural property in the Motueka Valley area comprising approximately 25ha. As well as the premises and the landlord’s house, there is another, larger dwelling occupied by a relation of the landlord. There is at least 300 metres between dwellings.
The tenancy agreement drafting was considered and special terms regarding the off-grid configuration and restrictions on use were included. There was a technical breach by the landlord regarding bond lodgement but this was not raised specifically within the tenant application. Even if it had been, given the inexperience and intent of the landlord, and the prompt return of the bond at the end of the tenancy, I do not consider exemplary damages would have followed. There were further technical breaches pertaining to the healthy home standards timeline for compliance. Again, these had minimal impact given the seasonal timeframes and no specific orders are made.
A wood burner was installed on 15 March 2023. It was used by the tenants without issue from that time until 7 June 2023. The tenant stated that prior to June the usual practise was to have a window ajar or such that air flow occurred. On 6 June 2023 the tenants home birthed their first child. On 7 June, the wood burner spilled smoke into the premises for the first time, causing some understandable distress to the tenants, especially as new parents with a one- day old. It appears accepted now that the smoke spills started at that time as the tenants modified previous behaviour and closed the windows, concerned about cold draughts effecting their baby. No passive airflow existed.
There were a further two instances of smoke spilling before it appears the likely cause was identified, and resolution implemented on or around 16 June 2023 (negative air pressure created when the wood burner was in use, the area was airtight, or any extractor fan was in use). The tenants stopped using the wood burner and alternate heating, during the winter period, was problematic given the off-grid configuration.
Given this order is made under section 78A RTA, I do not recount all of the related issues in detail but I record the tenants left the property as they no longer trusted the single source of heating in the premises and had trouble keeping warm. Having a new-born baby accentuated their sensitivity and concern. The tenants cited the vulnerability of a newborn to smoke inhalation as a particular concern. After one such spill, they had to vacate immediately with their baby, using their car as the alternative. A significant part of their compensation claim was for costs incurred in alternative accommodation. I heard from the tenant that lactation challenges presented early and she was verbally advised by her midwife to relocate to less-stressful accommodation to assist her in establishing her milk supply. This they did.
It is curious that the smoke alarm, new and installed just before the tenancy, appeared to not alarm during the smoke spill events. Fortunately, no spill occurred while all occupants were sleeping. This may be indicative of a fault in the smoke alarm, or the amount of smoke was not sufficient to set the alarm off. Neither party actually tested the alarm function. It was replaced around the same time the wood burner issue was resolved through a vent being installed.
The landlord confirmed that the premises had been converted from a container into the dwelling. The landlord also confirmed that no resource or building consent had been obtained for this building or use. They appear to have “flown under the radar”. The tenants confirmed no other significant issues with the build and function of the premises existed or were identified. From the tenant statements and photos provided, the conversion was completed to a good standard.
That notwithstanding, I believe the premises to be an unlawful residential premises. Putting aside resource consent, or lack of, I can see no grounds it may be exempt building consent requirements per Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004 or elsewhere. A building consent should have been obtained prior to the installation of the wood burner. Given subsequent questions over the installation and operation of the wood burner and the smoke alarm, the lack of appropriate consents hinders the respondents.
An email from the wood burner installer, Marius Mueller, to the owners on 27 April 2023 confirmed it was installed to the appropriate standard but this is considered less than required to confirm formal compliance. Other compliance concerns exist (wall fire rating and placement, restricted building work on the primary structure for the flue). Additionally, the gas installation of the stove and instant hot water was also completed by Mr Mueller but the Certificate of Compliance from the certifying gasfitter, Roger Taylor, is dated 5 December 2023, some three weeks after the tenancy commenced. This again appears a technical breach, but it remains the premises were let before appropriate certification confirmed the gas installation workmanship and that the premises were safe to occupy.
The landlords’ submitted they used the same wood burner type and install as a local “tiny house on wheels” manufacturer. That may be so, but the premises here are not a vehicle and appropriate consents were required. Special circumstances
Section 78A (4) RTA provides: Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in accordance with this Act in relation to the matter,— (a) the Tribunal may order the landlord to pay to the tenant— (i) the whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful residential premises; or (ii) an amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct:
Having considered the respective submissions, I consider it appropriate to make an award that has some regard to the special circumstances here. The whole rent sum totals $10,885.00. This is close to the compensation sum sought by the tenants in their application. A significant part of the compensation claims pertain to tenant alternate accommodation and their exit costs but if I had assessed each actual compensation claim rather than via s 78A provisions, I would not have accepted all of the compensation claims, finding it likely there were other motivations in their decision to relocate to Taranaki and not all costs follow any landlord failing.
The tenants entered the tenancy understanding the premises and its off-grid configuration but they were entitled to assume appropriate consenting ensured the premises would be safe to occupy.
I consider it would be inequitable to return all rent in this instance.
I used two models to derive what might be an appropriate deduction. The first placed a 50% deduction on total rent, having considered all issues – that equalling approximately $5,440.00. The second employed a full rent deduction effective from 15 March 2023, when the wood burner was installed, to the end of the tenancy. This calculation returned the figure of $5,650.00.
I have also considered the $400.00 compensation from the landlord for the tenants’ alternate accommodation at the time of the smoke spill.
The impact on the tenants regarding failure to maintain and quiet enjoyment, and any appropriate compensation, are factored into the above models. They are not disadvantaged by this approach.
Given the above considerations, I award the tenants the return of $5,000.00 of the rent they paid. Application filing fee
Because Jacob Oliver Alexander Lincoln, Eva Rosy McIsaac has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have been wholly successful in these proceedings, suppression of the tenants’ names is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4647852 — net $5,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Return of rent: Unlawful residential premises	$5,000.00	Return of rent: Unlawful residential premises
Net award	$5,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,020.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared in person. The tenants appeared via teleconference as pre-approved.
The tenant sought compensation of $10,527.26. The bond has already been returned to them by the landlord.
Separately, it became apparent from the application documentation the premises may be unlawful. This was raised. No exclusion of this tenancy under s 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) exists.
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful it may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
Where an order is made regarding an unlawful premises, that determination may encompass other tenant claims as factors to be considered, meaning the order made is based on s78A provisions but that order and any award is inclusive of the other tenant claims. I have adopted that approach here. Background
The tenancy commenced 13 November 2022. The premises was a recently converted shipping container that had been fitted out for off grid, domestic use. Electricity was via a solar array, inverter and battery. Bottled LPG provided fuel for the stove and hot water. Water, greywater and waste plumbing was connected. The tenants were the first occupants of the premises.
The landlord resides at the same address, a rural property in the Motueka Valley area comprising approximately 25ha. As well as the premises and the landlord’s house, there is another, larger dwelling occupied by a relation of the landlord. There is at least 300 metres between dwellings.
The tenancy agreement drafting was considered and special terms regarding the off-grid configuration and restrictions on use were included. There was a technical breach by the landlord regarding bond lodgement but this was not raised specifically within the tenant application. Even if it had been, given the inexperience and intent of the landlord, and the prompt return of the bond at the end of the tenancy, I do not consider exemplary damages would have followed. There were further technical breaches pertaining to the healthy home standards timeline for compliance. Again, these had minimal impact given the seasonal timeframes and no specific orders are made.
A wood burner was installed on 15 March 2023. It was used by the tenants without issue from that time until 7 June 2023. The tenant stated that prior to June the usual practise was to have a window ajar or such that air flow occurred. On 6 June 2023 the tenants home birthed their first child. On 7 June, the wood burner spilled smoke into the premises for the first time, causing some understandable distress to the tenants, especially as new parents with a one- day old. It appears accepted now that the smoke spills started at that time as the tenants modified previous behaviour and closed the windows, concerned about cold draughts effecting their baby. No passive airflow existed.
There were a further two instances of smoke spilling before it appears the likely cause was identified, and resolution implemented on or around 16 June 2023 (negative air pressure created when the wood burner was in use, the area was airtight, or any extractor fan was in use). The tenants stopped using the wood burner and alternate heating, during the winter period, was problematic given the off-grid configuration.
Given this order is made under section 78A RTA, I do not recount all of the related issues in detail but I record the tenants left the property as they no longer trusted the single source of heating in the premises and had trouble keeping warm. Having a new-born baby accentuated their sensitivity and concern. The tenants cited the vulnerability of a newborn to smoke inhalation as a particular concern. After one such spill, they had to vacate immediately with their baby, using their car as the alternative. A significant part of their compensation claim was for costs incurred in alternative accommodation. I heard from the tenant that lactation challenges presented early and she was verbally advised by her midwife to relocate to less-stressful accommodation to assist her in establishing her milk supply. This they did.
It is curious that the smoke alarm, new and installed just before the tenancy, appeared to not alarm during the smoke spill events. Fortunately, no spill occurred while all occupants were sleeping. This may be indicative of a fault in the smoke alarm, or the amount of smoke was not sufficient to set the alarm off. Neither party actually tested the alarm function. It was replaced around the same time the wood burner issue was resolved through a vent being installed.
The landlord confirmed that the premises had been converted from a container into the dwelling. The landlord also confirmed that no resource or building consent had been obtained for this building or use. They appear to have “flown under the radar”. The tenants confirmed no other significant issues with the build and function of the premises existed or were identified. From the tenant statements and photos provided, the conversion was completed to a good standard.
That notwithstanding, I believe the premises to be an unlawful residential premises. Putting aside resource consent, or lack of, I can see no grounds it may be exempt building consent requirements per Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004 or elsewhere. A building consent should have been obtained prior to the installation of the wood burner. Given subsequent questions over the installation and operation of the wood burner and the smoke alarm, the lack of appropriate consents hinders the respondents.
An email from the wood burner installer, Marius Mueller, to the owners on 27 April 2023 confirmed it was installed to the appropriate standard but this is considered less than required to confirm formal compliance. Other compliance concerns exist (wall fire rating and placement, restricted building work on the primary structure for the flue). Additionally, the gas installation of the stove and instant hot water was also completed by Mr Mueller but the Certificate of Compliance from the certifying gasfitter, Roger Taylor, is dated 5 December 2023, some three weeks after the tenancy commenced. This again appears a technical breach, but it remains the premises were let before appropriate certification confirmed the gas installation workmanship and that the premises were safe to occupy.
The landlords’ submitted they used the same wood burner type and install as a local “tiny house on wheels” manufacturer. That may be so, but the premises here are not a vehicle and appropriate consents were required. Special circumstances
Section 78A (4) RTA provides: Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in accordance with this Act in relation to the matter,— (a) the Tribunal may order the landlord to pay to the tenant— (i) the whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful residential premises; or (ii) an amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct:
Having considered the respective submissions, I consider it appropriate to make an award that has some regard to the special circumstances here. The whole rent sum totals $10,885.00. This is close to the compensation sum sought by the tenants in their application. A significant part of the compensation claims pertain to tenant alternate accommodation and their exit costs but if I had assessed each actual compensation claim rather than via s 78A provisions, I would not have accepted all of the compensation claims, finding it likely there were other motivations in their decision to relocate to Taranaki and not all costs follow any landlord failing.
The tenants entered the tenancy understanding the premises and its off-grid configuration but they were entitled to assume appropriate consenting ensured the premises would be safe to occupy.
I consider it would be inequitable to return all rent in this instance.
I used two models to derive what might be an appropriate deduction. The first placed a 50% deduction on total rent, having considered all issues – that equalling approximately $5,440.00. The second employed a full rent deduction effective from 15 March 2023, when the wood burner was installed, to the end of the tenancy. This calculation returned the figure of $5,650.00.
I have also considered the $400.00 compensation from the landlord for the tenants’ alternate accommodation at the time of the smoke spill.
The impact on the tenants regarding failure to maintain and quiet enjoyment, and any appropriate compensation, are factored into the above models. They are not disadvantaged by this approach.
Given the above considerations, I award the tenants the return of $5,000.00 of the rent they paid. Application filing fee
Because Jacob Oliver Alexander Lincoln, Eva Rosy McIsaac has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have been wholly successful in these proceedings, suppression of the tenants’ names is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647852 — Tenancy dispute at 531 Brooklyn Valley Road, Brooklyn, Motueka 7198

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647852 — Tenancy dispute at 531 Brooklyn Valley Road, Brooklyn, Motueka 7198

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions