What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648549 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4648549?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement For The Front Door Loc…: $190.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648549?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9501426-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648549 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4648549?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement For The Front Door Loc…: $190.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648549?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9501426-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648549 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648549 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648549 — net $210.44 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
Reimbursement for the front door lock	$190.00	Reimbursement for the front door lock
Net award	$210.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$210.44

Claims and awards for application 4648549 — net $210.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Reimbursement for the front door lock

Amount: $190.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimbursement for the front door lock

Net award

Tenant $210.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $210.44

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — The associated claim for exemplary damages is also dismissed. Other orders
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $210.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be arranged and booked by Wednesday 11 October 2023: a. Install draught stopping around the front door as required to meet Healthy Homes Standards. b. Change the locks on the two exterior gates so that a key is not needed to open the gates from the inside.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 3, the landlord must pay the tenant $700 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Orders 3 or 4 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $700. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy started in July 2023. The tenant has been concerned about the locks on the entry door and on the two outside gates since she moved in. She wants the Tribunal to make a decision about whether the door handle/locks comply with the building code because she wants the landlord to replace them with safer locks. She wants the Tribunal to make a work order so that the gas heater – and in particular the thermostat - can be checked and so that draught stopping can be applied to the front door. The tenant also wants compensation and exemplary damages because she has not been able to use her house as she intended since she moved in. The questions I have to decide are: • Is the gas heater working as it should? • Should the landlord install draught stopping? • Should the landlord pay to have three locks changed? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Is the gas heater working as it should?

The tenant claims that the landlord has 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 compliance date for this tenancy is 3 November 2023 (120 after 7 July 2023 because the tenancy started after 28 August 2022).
In particular the tenant submitted the gas heater is not compliant because the thermostat is faulty. At the hearing the landlord agreed to a work order so that the thermostat on the gas heater can be checked.
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 requires that heaters in the particular tenancy 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.
During the hearing the landlord submitted that the gas heater does not require a thermostat. She submitted that it was akin to a firebox, which does not have a thermostat, but which can be a qualifying heater under the HHS.
I have checked the HHS regulations. Regulation 9 specifies that a qualifying heater must be fixed and installed in the living room. The heater can be a flued combustion heater - which this gas heater is. If the heater is an electric heater, it must have a thermostat. I cannot see anywhere in the regulations which states that a flued gas heater must have a thermostat.
I note the tenant did not challenge the HHS compliance calculations contained in the HHS statement for the house. I find the gas heater complies with the HHS.
I am leaving it to the landlord to decide whether or not to have the thermostat checked, despite its agreement to a work order in the hearing. This is because the heater was checked by Water and Gas and I was provided with an email to say the heater was in good condition and could continue to be used. I am not making any order for compensation because there has been no breach by the landlord.

Should the landlord install draught stopping?

The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. See section 45(1A) RTA.
The HHS statement for this house was written on 28 June 2023 and says the external doors are in a good condition with no obvious gaps to allow draughts to enter the property. The tenant said there is a draught around the front door. Both parties provided me with photos of the door. I am more persuaded by the photo taken by the tenant at night time and with the outside light on. It seems most likely to me the rubber seals are not working as they should if we can see light coming in around the door frame in the photo. I make a work order for draught stopping.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(1)(e), (2) and 78(2AA) RTA.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) RTA.
I make an order in the alternative/monetary limit in the amount of $200 for the draught stopping.
I am not persuaded that compensation or exemplary damages should be awarded because I consider this to be a maintenance issue.

Should the landlord pay to have three locks changed?

There are two issues with the locks. There are two high exterior gates which have key locks that do not currently lock. The landlord knows about this issue and agreed to get the locks fixed when the tenant moved in. These have not been fixed yet and the tenant claims this is a breach of the landlord’s duty to repair and maintain the tenancy premises in a reasonable condition. She wants a work order so that the locks are repaired. She submitted that not having the locks has meant several breaches of her privacy by people, such as couriers. I find the landlord should repair the locks on the gates because that is what the landlord agreed to when the tenant moved in. See section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant is also very concerned about her ongoing safety because the door handle on the front door required a key to be unlocked before a person inside the house could exit. The tenant claims the landlord has breached its duty to provide safe fire egress from the house. This would be a breach of the landlord’s duty to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety, under any relevant enactment. See section 45(1)(c) RTA.
The tenant has already changed the front door handle and paid $190 for this minor change, which the landlord agreed to. The landlord has asked the tenant to install the original lock again at the end of the tenancy. The tenant wants the landlord to reimburse her for the $190. She provided a receipt showing she paid that amount to [Locksmith 1] on 21 August 2023. I am persuaded the tenant paid $190 to replace the front door lock with a snib lock.
The tenant wants a work order for the two exterior gate locks to be changed to gate locks with a snib on the inside, rather than a key. The landlord submitted it was willing to change the gate locks, but replace “like for like”, and this would not solve the tenant’s fire egress safety concerns.
We spent time in the hearing considering whether or not this particular type of key lock is allowed. Both parties made submissions on the safety of the locks. The tenant provided information from MBIE, from the senior compliance officer at the local council and statements from two architects. The information from MBIE confirmed that the compliance officer was looking at the correct piece of building code for this house, which was built in 2008. MBIE advised they could only provide information, and the tenant would need to talk with a compliance officer to get specific advice.
The compliance officer provided information about the front door lock. His initial advice was that a piece of building code from 2008 called section 3.17.2 of C/AS1 states “Where the building is occupied, locking devices shall be clearly visible, located where such a device would normally be expected, designed to be easily operated without a key or other device, and allow the door to open in the normal manner”. In his opinion this applied to both commercial and residential buildings. He would not commit to whether 3.17.2 of C/AS1 applied to the exterior gates.
The two architects gave their opinion that the current locks would be in breach of the building code. One said that would apply to the exterior gates as well because they are part of the exit path from the site if exiting through the front door is impossible.
The landlord provided an email from the same senior compliance officer, who retracted his advice that section 3.17.2 of C/AS1 applied to residential buildings. He confirmed he had no advice about the compliance of the exterior gates. I was also provided with an email from [Locksmith 2] who sell the locks. Their opinion was that the locks could be used in residential buildings. The email does not specify if the writer is relying on the current building code or the 2008 code. Helpfully, the email states that it is easy to change the current locks by swapping the cylinders over.
No one called expert evidence. I have had a look at the building code, and I am not confident I can draw any conclusions about locks without expert evidence. I have looked at previous Tenancy Tribunal decisions and I cannot find any addressing the same issue. I am more persuaded by the tenant’s evidence, in particular the explanation by [The architect], about the exterior gates being part of the exit path in case of fire.
I find the landlord should reimburse the tenant for the cost of changing the front door lock. The tenant can leave the new lock at the end of the tenancy. A work order is made for changing the locks in the two exterior gates to locks with snibs on the inside. These must be in working order so the tenant can secure the gates and maintain some control over her privacy.
I make an order in the alternative/monetary limit in the amount of $500 for the changes to the gate locks.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment. She has asked for compensation calculated on a daily rate from 7 July 2023 because of the stress, discomfort, effort, and disruption to her daily life. 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.
I have considered the correspondence and the submissions made at the hearing. I am persuaded the landlord has acted reasonably to date, and that the reason the locks have not been changed is because the landlord does not want to agree to an unnecessary change that will cost money. As I said, the answer to the question of compliance is complicated. The parties both had genuine advice that conflicted, and the position was not helped when the compliance officer changed his advice just before the hearing. I am persuaded any delay in repairs to the gates and the door lock is reasonable in the circumstances. I do not find there has been any breach of quiet enjoyment and this claim is dismissed. The associated claim for exemplary damages is also dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with one of the claims, I have reimbursed one filing fee.
I have used my discretion to allow suppression for both parties because the tenancy is continuing, there is no public interest in the names and people are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve disputes.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648549 — net $210.44 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
Reimbursement for the front door lock	$190.00	Reimbursement for the front door lock
Net award	$210.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$210.44

Claims and awards for application 4648549 — net $210.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Reimbursement for the front door lock

Amount: $190.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimbursement for the front door lock

Net award

Tenant $210.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $210.44

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — The associated claim for exemplary damages is also dismissed. Other orders
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $210.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be arranged and booked by Wednesday 11 October 2023: a. Install draught stopping around the front door as required to meet Healthy Homes Standards. b. Change the locks on the two exterior gates so that a key is not needed to open the gates from the inside.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 3, the landlord must pay the tenant $700 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Orders 3 or 4 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $700. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy started in July 2023. The tenant has been concerned about the locks on the entry door and on the two outside gates since she moved in. She wants the Tribunal to make a decision about whether the door handle/locks comply with the building code because she wants the landlord to replace them with safer locks. She wants the Tribunal to make a work order so that the gas heater – and in particular the thermostat - can be checked and so that draught stopping can be applied to the front door. The tenant also wants compensation and exemplary damages because she has not been able to use her house as she intended since she moved in. The questions I have to decide are: • Is the gas heater working as it should? • Should the landlord install draught stopping? • Should the landlord pay to have three locks changed? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Is the gas heater working as it should?

The tenant claims that the landlord has 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 compliance date for this tenancy is 3 November 2023 (120 after 7 July 2023 because the tenancy started after 28 August 2022).
In particular the tenant submitted the gas heater is not compliant because the thermostat is faulty. At the hearing the landlord agreed to a work order so that the thermostat on the gas heater can be checked.
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 requires that heaters in the particular tenancy 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.
During the hearing the landlord submitted that the gas heater does not require a thermostat. She submitted that it was akin to a firebox, which does not have a thermostat, but which can be a qualifying heater under the HHS.
I have checked the HHS regulations. Regulation 9 specifies that a qualifying heater must be fixed and installed in the living room. The heater can be a flued combustion heater - which this gas heater is. If the heater is an electric heater, it must have a thermostat. I cannot see anywhere in the regulations which states that a flued gas heater must have a thermostat.
I note the tenant did not challenge the HHS compliance calculations contained in the HHS statement for the house. I find the gas heater complies with the HHS.
I am leaving it to the landlord to decide whether or not to have the thermostat checked, despite its agreement to a work order in the hearing. This is because the heater was checked by Water and Gas and I was provided with an email to say the heater was in good condition and could continue to be used. I am not making any order for compensation because there has been no breach by the landlord.

Should the landlord install draught stopping?

The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. See section 45(1A) RTA.
The HHS statement for this house was written on 28 June 2023 and says the external doors are in a good condition with no obvious gaps to allow draughts to enter the property. The tenant said there is a draught around the front door. Both parties provided me with photos of the door. I am more persuaded by the photo taken by the tenant at night time and with the outside light on. It seems most likely to me the rubber seals are not working as they should if we can see light coming in around the door frame in the photo. I make a work order for draught stopping.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(1)(e), (2) and 78(2AA) RTA.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) RTA.
I make an order in the alternative/monetary limit in the amount of $200 for the draught stopping.
I am not persuaded that compensation or exemplary damages should be awarded because I consider this to be a maintenance issue.

Should the landlord pay to have three locks changed?

There are two issues with the locks. There are two high exterior gates which have key locks that do not currently lock. The landlord knows about this issue and agreed to get the locks fixed when the tenant moved in. These have not been fixed yet and the tenant claims this is a breach of the landlord’s duty to repair and maintain the tenancy premises in a reasonable condition. She wants a work order so that the locks are repaired. She submitted that not having the locks has meant several breaches of her privacy by people, such as couriers. I find the landlord should repair the locks on the gates because that is what the landlord agreed to when the tenant moved in. See section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant is also very concerned about her ongoing safety because the door handle on the front door required a key to be unlocked before a person inside the house could exit. The tenant claims the landlord has breached its duty to provide safe fire egress from the house. This would be a breach of the landlord’s duty to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety, under any relevant enactment. See section 45(1)(c) RTA.
The tenant has already changed the front door handle and paid $190 for this minor change, which the landlord agreed to. The landlord has asked the tenant to install the original lock again at the end of the tenancy. The tenant wants the landlord to reimburse her for the $190. She provided a receipt showing she paid that amount to [Locksmith 1] on 21 August 2023. I am persuaded the tenant paid $190 to replace the front door lock with a snib lock.
The tenant wants a work order for the two exterior gate locks to be changed to gate locks with a snib on the inside, rather than a key. The landlord submitted it was willing to change the gate locks, but replace “like for like”, and this would not solve the tenant’s fire egress safety concerns.
We spent time in the hearing considering whether or not this particular type of key lock is allowed. Both parties made submissions on the safety of the locks. The tenant provided information from MBIE, from the senior compliance officer at the local council and statements from two architects. The information from MBIE confirmed that the compliance officer was looking at the correct piece of building code for this house, which was built in 2008. MBIE advised they could only provide information, and the tenant would need to talk with a compliance officer to get specific advice.
The compliance officer provided information about the front door lock. His initial advice was that a piece of building code from 2008 called section 3.17.2 of C/AS1 states “Where the building is occupied, locking devices shall be clearly visible, located where such a device would normally be expected, designed to be easily operated without a key or other device, and allow the door to open in the normal manner”. In his opinion this applied to both commercial and residential buildings. He would not commit to whether 3.17.2 of C/AS1 applied to the exterior gates.
The two architects gave their opinion that the current locks would be in breach of the building code. One said that would apply to the exterior gates as well because they are part of the exit path from the site if exiting through the front door is impossible.
The landlord provided an email from the same senior compliance officer, who retracted his advice that section 3.17.2 of C/AS1 applied to residential buildings. He confirmed he had no advice about the compliance of the exterior gates. I was also provided with an email from [Locksmith 2] who sell the locks. Their opinion was that the locks could be used in residential buildings. The email does not specify if the writer is relying on the current building code or the 2008 code. Helpfully, the email states that it is easy to change the current locks by swapping the cylinders over.
No one called expert evidence. I have had a look at the building code, and I am not confident I can draw any conclusions about locks without expert evidence. I have looked at previous Tenancy Tribunal decisions and I cannot find any addressing the same issue. I am more persuaded by the tenant’s evidence, in particular the explanation by [The architect], about the exterior gates being part of the exit path in case of fire.
I find the landlord should reimburse the tenant for the cost of changing the front door lock. The tenant can leave the new lock at the end of the tenancy. A work order is made for changing the locks in the two exterior gates to locks with snibs on the inside. These must be in working order so the tenant can secure the gates and maintain some control over her privacy.
I make an order in the alternative/monetary limit in the amount of $500 for the changes to the gate locks.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment. She has asked for compensation calculated on a daily rate from 7 July 2023 because of the stress, discomfort, effort, and disruption to her daily life. 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.
I have considered the correspondence and the submissions made at the hearing. I am persuaded the landlord has acted reasonably to date, and that the reason the locks have not been changed is because the landlord does not want to agree to an unnecessary change that will cost money. As I said, the answer to the question of compliance is complicated. The parties both had genuine advice that conflicted, and the position was not helped when the compliance officer changed his advice just before the hearing. I am persuaded any delay in repairs to the gates and the door lock is reasonable in the circumstances. I do not find there has been any breach of quiet enjoyment and this claim is dismissed. The associated claim for exemplary damages is also dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with one of the claims, I have reimbursed one filing fee.
I have used my discretion to allow suppression for both parties because the tenancy is continuing, there is no public interest in the names and people are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve disputes.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648549 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648549 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the gas heater working as it should?

Should the landlord install draught stopping?

Should the landlord pay to have three locks changed?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the gas heater working as it should?

Should the landlord install draught stopping?

Should the landlord pay to have three locks changed?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions