What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4658692?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4658692?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of HHS heating…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breaches of quiet enjo…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $111.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658692?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658692?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9447535-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4658692?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4658692?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of HHS heating…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breaches of quiet enjo…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $111.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658692?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658692?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9447535-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Rossiter Avenue, Redwood, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4658692 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658692 — net $259.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (2 days	$111.43		Rent arrears (2 days
Carpet cleaning (consent	$100.00		Carpet cleaning (consent
Compensation: breach of HHS heating standard		$200.00	breach of HHS heating standard
Compensation: breaches of quiet enjoyment		$100.00	breaches of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: failure to include all certifications in		$150.00	failure to include all certifications in
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$211.43	$470.44
Net award		$259.01
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$259.01

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Trust Property Group Limited as agent must pay Mary Anne Hamilton $259.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 (5405185-006) to Mary Anne Hamilton immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr and Mrs Plummer represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and carpet cleaning costs. Background
The tenancy stared on 10 June 2022. It was a fixed term tenancy that then became a periodic tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 4 September 2023 after the tenant gave 28 day’s written notice to terminate the tenancy.
After the tenant made her Tribunal application, the landlord cross applied.
Both parties have provided documentary evidence that I have considered. They each gave oral evidence at the hearing. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: •Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and carpet cleaning costs? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for landlord breaches? •Has the tenant proved that some of the landlord’s breaches amount to unlawful acts? •If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and carpet cleaning costs?
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning. I allow that claim by consent.
I find proved the landlord’s claim for rent arrears for the 2-day period 1,2 September 2023. The tenant’s notice to terminate the tenancy confirmed that the end date of the tenancy was 4 September 2023.
The landlord had promised a 2-day rent credit for cleaning the tenant did at the start of the tenancy. Its claim for rent to 2 September only is correct. The rent credit is for the following 2 days’ rent.
The rent summary produced in evidence confirms that all payments of rent (including the 2-week advance payment made at the start of the tenancy) have been correctly accounted for.
I award the landlord rent arrears of $111.43.

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for landlord breaches?

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
I make no award of compensation for the landlord’s failure to include all certifications in the tenancy agreement. I have addressed that issue by an award of exemplary damages.
The tenant raised the issue of the landlord’s promise to give her a 2-day rent credit for cleaning work she did at the start of the tenancy.
That issue has been addressed by the landlord’s deduction of 2 days’ rent from its rent arrears claim. There is no further compensation to be awarded.
The tenant alleged breaches of her quiet enjoyment, and privacy. She said that the landlord would often just text to advise they were coming to the premises without the required notice. The landlord denied that.
The tenant’s allegations were vague. However, the evidence does establish that the owner of the premises did attend on occasions without notice, something which the landlords were aware of and acted on.
For the breaches by the owner (also a landlord by definition) I award the tenant compensation of $100.00. That will be payable by him, although I have included it in the orders made against the landlord. They and the owner can deal with that matter between themselves.
The tenant raised issues about the landlord’s annoyance with her keeping a dog at the premises; she said she had shared custody of the dog from her earlier relationship.
She said the landlord did not make her get rid of the dog, but she felt she had to because of their attitude.
The landlord said the tenant told them she rehomed the dog because the grounds were too small.
This is not an issue that requires any intervention by the Tribunal. It is simply a tension that can arise between parties to a tenancy agreement. The tenant has not proved any landlord breach.
The same applies to the landlord not agreeing to the tenant’s son living at the premises. The premises are a 1-bedroom and studio (a converted garage). It was not unreasonable for the landlord to want to reference check the tenant’s son if he were to become a tenant on the tenancy agreement. If he was just staying as a guest, there was nothing to prevent him doing so. The tenant has not proved any landlord breach.
The tenant alleged that the premises were falsely advertised. In law this is referred to as misrepresentation.
The advertisement, produced in evidence, refers to a ‘1 bedroom plus extra- large studio room’. It says ‘the second garage has been converted to a studio or extra living with a separate entrance...’
The tenant said the inspection reports referred to a ‘study’ or an enclosed ‘garage’ which did not reflect the advertisement.
I do not find any misrepresentation proved. The tenant viewed the premises before she signed the tenancy agreement. The descriptions used are not so different so as to amount to a misrepresentation.
Finally, although not specifically addressed at the hearing, but mentioned in the tenant’s documents, I do not find proved an allegation that the landlord failed to maintain the premises.
The landlord’s documentary evidence shows that the premises were maintained including the installation of wall insulation and a new roof. The tenant has not proved a breach by the landlord by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Has the tenant proved that some of the landlord’s breaches amount to unlawful acts?
The tenant has proved (and the landlord accepts) that there were two unlawful acts – the failure to comply with the HHS heating standard within time, and the failure to provide all required certifications in the tenancy agreement

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
The landlord breached the HHS heating standard and accepts that it did so. The landlord thought it had 120 days from the start of the tenancy in which to comply. In fact, compliance was required within 90 days.
A heat pump was installed about 5 weeks after the timeframe for compliance had expired.
I do not find that the landlord acted with intent. It did not turn its mind to the unlawful act and then deliberately decide not to comply. Rather, its actions were negligent.
Negligence is not sufficient; it does not equate to intent. For that reason, the Tribunal does not award exemplary damages.
However, the Tribunal is persuaded that the tenant should receive compensation for the delay in the landlord installing a heat pump. The period in question (the non-compliance period) was about 5 weeks. I award the tenant compensation of $200.00 for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy for that period.
Unlike the HHS compliance issue, I find that the landlord did act intentionally by not including the necessary certifications in the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not provide any reasonable explanation for this failure.
Being unaware of the need to comply can establish intent; all landlords and especially professional landlords are expected to know their statutory responsibilities and to ensure they are met.
The landlord’s action by not completing the necessary certifications had an effect on the tenant, was against her interests, and was against the public interest.
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $100.00 for this unlawful act.
I make no award of exemplary damages or compensation for the landlord’s alleged failure to provide the full tenancy agreement to the tenant, or for including incorrect contact details in the agreement.
The landlord said the tenancy agreement was emailed to the tenant and later provided in hard copy. The tenant had the first page of the agreement before the tenancy, sufficient for her to provide confirmation of the tenancy to WINZ. The inclusion of the tenant’s daughter’s contact details was, on the evidence given, a genuine error.
Under Section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) there is reference to the privacy of the tenant and the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that this is not interfered with.
In Thompson-Huntley v KJP Investments Limited (2021) NZTT Waitakere 4260498, the Tribunal noted that the right to privacy under the RTA does not directly correspond to the right to privacy under the Privacy Act 1993. The purpose of the section is to ensure tenants are free from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in their private lives while living at the tenancy premises.
At most, the landlords actions were sloppy. A full hard copy of the tenancy agreement should have been given to the tenant when it was signed. The tenant eventually received the full agreement after repeatedly asking for it.
What happened was annoying and inconvenient, but it does not require sanction by the Tribunal. Result
The landlord’s claims are successful in the amount of $211.43. The tenant’s claims are successful in the amount of $470.44. The landlord must pay the tenant $259.01.
The bond will be paid to the tenant in full. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658692 — net $259.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (2 days	$111.43		Rent arrears (2 days
Carpet cleaning (consent	$100.00		Carpet cleaning (consent
Compensation: breach of HHS heating standard		$200.00	breach of HHS heating standard
Compensation: breaches of quiet enjoyment		$100.00	breaches of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: failure to include all certifications in		$150.00	failure to include all certifications in
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$211.43	$470.44
Net award		$259.01
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$259.01

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Trust Property Group Limited as agent must pay Mary Anne Hamilton $259.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 (5405185-006) to Mary Anne Hamilton immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr and Mrs Plummer represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and carpet cleaning costs. Background
The tenancy stared on 10 June 2022. It was a fixed term tenancy that then became a periodic tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 4 September 2023 after the tenant gave 28 day’s written notice to terminate the tenancy.
After the tenant made her Tribunal application, the landlord cross applied.
Both parties have provided documentary evidence that I have considered. They each gave oral evidence at the hearing. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: •Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and carpet cleaning costs? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for landlord breaches? •Has the tenant proved that some of the landlord’s breaches amount to unlawful acts? •If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and carpet cleaning costs?
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning. I allow that claim by consent.
I find proved the landlord’s claim for rent arrears for the 2-day period 1,2 September 2023. The tenant’s notice to terminate the tenancy confirmed that the end date of the tenancy was 4 September 2023.
The landlord had promised a 2-day rent credit for cleaning the tenant did at the start of the tenancy. Its claim for rent to 2 September only is correct. The rent credit is for the following 2 days’ rent.
The rent summary produced in evidence confirms that all payments of rent (including the 2-week advance payment made at the start of the tenancy) have been correctly accounted for.
I award the landlord rent arrears of $111.43.

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for landlord breaches?

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
I make no award of compensation for the landlord’s failure to include all certifications in the tenancy agreement. I have addressed that issue by an award of exemplary damages.
The tenant raised the issue of the landlord’s promise to give her a 2-day rent credit for cleaning work she did at the start of the tenancy.
That issue has been addressed by the landlord’s deduction of 2 days’ rent from its rent arrears claim. There is no further compensation to be awarded.
The tenant alleged breaches of her quiet enjoyment, and privacy. She said that the landlord would often just text to advise they were coming to the premises without the required notice. The landlord denied that.
The tenant’s allegations were vague. However, the evidence does establish that the owner of the premises did attend on occasions without notice, something which the landlords were aware of and acted on.
For the breaches by the owner (also a landlord by definition) I award the tenant compensation of $100.00. That will be payable by him, although I have included it in the orders made against the landlord. They and the owner can deal with that matter between themselves.
The tenant raised issues about the landlord’s annoyance with her keeping a dog at the premises; she said she had shared custody of the dog from her earlier relationship.
She said the landlord did not make her get rid of the dog, but she felt she had to because of their attitude.
The landlord said the tenant told them she rehomed the dog because the grounds were too small.
This is not an issue that requires any intervention by the Tribunal. It is simply a tension that can arise between parties to a tenancy agreement. The tenant has not proved any landlord breach.
The same applies to the landlord not agreeing to the tenant’s son living at the premises. The premises are a 1-bedroom and studio (a converted garage). It was not unreasonable for the landlord to want to reference check the tenant’s son if he were to become a tenant on the tenancy agreement. If he was just staying as a guest, there was nothing to prevent him doing so. The tenant has not proved any landlord breach.
The tenant alleged that the premises were falsely advertised. In law this is referred to as misrepresentation.
The advertisement, produced in evidence, refers to a ‘1 bedroom plus extra- large studio room’. It says ‘the second garage has been converted to a studio or extra living with a separate entrance...’
The tenant said the inspection reports referred to a ‘study’ or an enclosed ‘garage’ which did not reflect the advertisement.
I do not find any misrepresentation proved. The tenant viewed the premises before she signed the tenancy agreement. The descriptions used are not so different so as to amount to a misrepresentation.
Finally, although not specifically addressed at the hearing, but mentioned in the tenant’s documents, I do not find proved an allegation that the landlord failed to maintain the premises.
The landlord’s documentary evidence shows that the premises were maintained including the installation of wall insulation and a new roof. The tenant has not proved a breach by the landlord by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Has the tenant proved that some of the landlord’s breaches amount to unlawful acts?
The tenant has proved (and the landlord accepts) that there were two unlawful acts – the failure to comply with the HHS heating standard within time, and the failure to provide all required certifications in the tenancy agreement

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
The landlord breached the HHS heating standard and accepts that it did so. The landlord thought it had 120 days from the start of the tenancy in which to comply. In fact, compliance was required within 90 days.
A heat pump was installed about 5 weeks after the timeframe for compliance had expired.
I do not find that the landlord acted with intent. It did not turn its mind to the unlawful act and then deliberately decide not to comply. Rather, its actions were negligent.
Negligence is not sufficient; it does not equate to intent. For that reason, the Tribunal does not award exemplary damages.
However, the Tribunal is persuaded that the tenant should receive compensation for the delay in the landlord installing a heat pump. The period in question (the non-compliance period) was about 5 weeks. I award the tenant compensation of $200.00 for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy for that period.
Unlike the HHS compliance issue, I find that the landlord did act intentionally by not including the necessary certifications in the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not provide any reasonable explanation for this failure.
Being unaware of the need to comply can establish intent; all landlords and especially professional landlords are expected to know their statutory responsibilities and to ensure they are met.
The landlord’s action by not completing the necessary certifications had an effect on the tenant, was against her interests, and was against the public interest.
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $100.00 for this unlawful act.
I make no award of exemplary damages or compensation for the landlord’s alleged failure to provide the full tenancy agreement to the tenant, or for including incorrect contact details in the agreement.
The landlord said the tenancy agreement was emailed to the tenant and later provided in hard copy. The tenant had the first page of the agreement before the tenancy, sufficient for her to provide confirmation of the tenancy to WINZ. The inclusion of the tenant’s daughter’s contact details was, on the evidence given, a genuine error.
Under Section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) there is reference to the privacy of the tenant and the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that this is not interfered with.
In Thompson-Huntley v KJP Investments Limited (2021) NZTT Waitakere 4260498, the Tribunal noted that the right to privacy under the RTA does not directly correspond to the right to privacy under the Privacy Act 1993. The purpose of the section is to ensure tenants are free from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in their private lives while living at the tenancy premises.
At most, the landlords actions were sloppy. A full hard copy of the tenancy agreement should have been given to the tenant when it was signed. The tenant eventually received the full agreement after repeatedly asking for it.
What happened was annoying and inconvenient, but it does not require sanction by the Tribunal. Result
The landlord’s claims are successful in the amount of $211.43. The tenant’s claims are successful in the amount of $470.44. The landlord must pay the tenant $259.01.
The bond will be paid to the tenant in full. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658692 — Healthy homes at 41 Rossiter Avenue, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658692 — Healthy homes at 41 Rossiter Avenue, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for landlord breaches?

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for landlord breaches?

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions