What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4666889?

Compensation: Stairs: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666889?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9638952-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4666889?

Compensation: Stairs: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666889?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9638952-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1236 Ruapekapeka Road, Kawakawa 0182 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4666889 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666889 — net $1,720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards in respect of heating and ventilation	$750.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards in respect of heating and ventilation
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet obligations in respect of smoke alarms	$750.00	Failure to meet obligations in respect of smoke alarms
Compensation: Stairs	$200.00	Stairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,720.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

The background to this application is set out in the order dated 7 October 2023.
The substantive hearing took place in Kaikohe on 26 October 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Healthy homes standards and smoke alarms
The healthy homes standards apply to all new tenancies entered into after 1 July 2021.
The standards impose obligations on landlords in terms of providing a means for heating, mechanical ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom, adequate stormwater drainage systems, and preventing draughts.
The tenanted premises is a tiny home. The rent was $140.00 per week. Both parties understood that the tenancy was going to be short term, although they disagree about whether it was for a specified period.
Those factors do not mean that the healthy homes standards did not apply to this tenancy. Per the previous order, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (and all the rights and duties in it) applied to this tenancy. However, they are relevant considerations when considering an appropriate award of exemplary damages, as discussed in more detail below.
It is not disputed that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards in respect of heating and ventilation. There was no fixed means of heating in the main living area of the house. There is no mechanical extraction in the bathroom.
Ms Guest also raised concerns about drainage. She submitted that grey water from the washing machine discharged underneath the home. She provided a photograph showing a disconnected downpipe.
Ms Cookson submitted that the grey water discharges into a channel and it does not pool underneath the house. She submitted that the downpipe was intact at the start of this tenancy, and she did not know that it was missing.
The evidence available to me does not establish that the premises failed to have “efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water and ground water”.
There was no smoke alarm in the premises when the tenancy began in April. Ms Cookson supplied Ms Guest with a smoke alarm in August.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to meet the healthy homes standards. It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to meet its obligations in respect of smoke alarms 1 .
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. 1 Section 45(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
The maximum award of exemplary damages for any breach of the landlord’s healthy homes obligations is $7,200.00. The maximum award of exemplary damages for failing to provide complying smoke alarms is $7,200.00.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to 2 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
I accept that the landlord genuinely did not turn his mind to compliance with the healthy homes standards.
A landlord failing to turn their mind to their legal obligations, or simply being unaware of them, does not mean that the Tribunal is unable award exemplary damages. Landlords are deemed to know the law, and Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law 3 .
However, the absence of intention is a relevant mitigating factor.
I accept Ms Guest’s oral evidence that the home was damp and cold during the winter months. The landlord took steps to mitigate this by purchasing costly equipment including a diesel heater and an inverter generator to boost the power available for Ms Guest.
Having regard to these factors my finding is that: a. It is appropriate to make a single award of exemplary damages covering both the heating and ventilation breaches. b. The fact that the breach was not intentional, that the landlord took genuine steps to attempt to improve Ms Guest’s living conditions, and that the premises are inherently “limited” are relevant mitigating factors. c. I will award exemplary damages of $750.00.
The failure to provide a smoke alarm is a separate breach.
Again, I accept that the landlord did not think to install a smoke alarm in the premises. Ms Cookson supplied one to Ms Guest reasonably promptly once the issue was raised. 2 Section 109 RTA 3 T.M.T. New Zealand Limited v Sweeney & Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182
However, it is a breach that warrants an award of exemplary damages. The limitations of the property and the fact that it was going to be a temporary tenancy does not remove the landlord’s obligation to provide a smoke alarm.
Smoke alarms are a simple, effective, low cost means of protecting life and property. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their duty to provide complying smoke alarms in all residential tenancies.
I will award exemplary damages of $750.00. Stairs
There is a small set of internal stairs in the home that provides access to the bedroom in the ‘loft’.
The stairs were not completely secured.
Ms Guest, who was pregnant, was uncomfortable about using the stairs, particularly at night.
Ms Cookson submitted that the construction of the tiny home was not entirely complete when Ms Guest moved into the property, and that Ms Guest was aware of this. She submitted that she would have been happy to secure the stairs if Ms Guest had asked.
Again, I acknowledge that the property has its inherent limitations and quirks (including an external toilet) but the fact that the stairs move to some extent is a health and safety issue.
Landlords must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises 4 .
Fortunately Ms Guest did not suffer an accident on the stairs during the tenancy, but the issue is serious enough to warrant a small award of compensation.
I will award $200.00. Termination
The landlord issued notice on the grounds that the premises were required for use by a member of the landlord’s family (his daughter Ms Emarn Cookson).
At the hearing Ms Cookson explained that: a. Ms Guest stopped coming to work due to health problems. 4 Section 45(1)(c) RTA b. They needed to bring in another worker to keep the farm going. c. The worker would move into where Ms Cookson is currently living, and Ms Cookson would move into the tiny home. d. Ms Cookson has lived in the tiny home before, including over winter, and she has no problem living there.
Ms Guest submitted that the notice was retaliatory because she received it within a couple of weeks of issuing a 14-day breach notice to the landlord and then filing this application.
I acknowledge Ms Guest’s suspicion about the motivation for the termination notice given the timing of it.
However, landlords are entitled to give notice to terminate a tenancy if the premises are required as a place of residence by the landlord or a member of the landlord’s family.
Ms Cookson’s explanation of her need for the tiny home is credible.
It is not proven that the notice was retaliatory. Filing fee
The tenant has been successful in this application is entitled to recover the filing fee of $20.44 5 .
It is noted that the landlord intends to file a cross-application for vacated damage, missing chattels, etc. That application will be dealt with separately.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666889 — net $1,720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards in respect of heating and ventilation	$750.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards in respect of heating and ventilation
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet obligations in respect of smoke alarms	$750.00	Failure to meet obligations in respect of smoke alarms
Compensation: Stairs	$200.00	Stairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,720.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

The background to this application is set out in the order dated 7 October 2023.
The substantive hearing took place in Kaikohe on 26 October 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Healthy homes standards and smoke alarms
The healthy homes standards apply to all new tenancies entered into after 1 July 2021.
The standards impose obligations on landlords in terms of providing a means for heating, mechanical ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom, adequate stormwater drainage systems, and preventing draughts.
The tenanted premises is a tiny home. The rent was $140.00 per week. Both parties understood that the tenancy was going to be short term, although they disagree about whether it was for a specified period.
Those factors do not mean that the healthy homes standards did not apply to this tenancy. Per the previous order, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (and all the rights and duties in it) applied to this tenancy. However, they are relevant considerations when considering an appropriate award of exemplary damages, as discussed in more detail below.
It is not disputed that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards in respect of heating and ventilation. There was no fixed means of heating in the main living area of the house. There is no mechanical extraction in the bathroom.
Ms Guest also raised concerns about drainage. She submitted that grey water from the washing machine discharged underneath the home. She provided a photograph showing a disconnected downpipe.
Ms Cookson submitted that the grey water discharges into a channel and it does not pool underneath the house. She submitted that the downpipe was intact at the start of this tenancy, and she did not know that it was missing.
The evidence available to me does not establish that the premises failed to have “efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water and ground water”.
There was no smoke alarm in the premises when the tenancy began in April. Ms Cookson supplied Ms Guest with a smoke alarm in August.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to meet the healthy homes standards. It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to meet its obligations in respect of smoke alarms 1 .
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. 1 Section 45(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
The maximum award of exemplary damages for any breach of the landlord’s healthy homes obligations is $7,200.00. The maximum award of exemplary damages for failing to provide complying smoke alarms is $7,200.00.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to 2 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
I accept that the landlord genuinely did not turn his mind to compliance with the healthy homes standards.
A landlord failing to turn their mind to their legal obligations, or simply being unaware of them, does not mean that the Tribunal is unable award exemplary damages. Landlords are deemed to know the law, and Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law 3 .
However, the absence of intention is a relevant mitigating factor.
I accept Ms Guest’s oral evidence that the home was damp and cold during the winter months. The landlord took steps to mitigate this by purchasing costly equipment including a diesel heater and an inverter generator to boost the power available for Ms Guest.
Having regard to these factors my finding is that: a. It is appropriate to make a single award of exemplary damages covering both the heating and ventilation breaches. b. The fact that the breach was not intentional, that the landlord took genuine steps to attempt to improve Ms Guest’s living conditions, and that the premises are inherently “limited” are relevant mitigating factors. c. I will award exemplary damages of $750.00.
The failure to provide a smoke alarm is a separate breach.
Again, I accept that the landlord did not think to install a smoke alarm in the premises. Ms Cookson supplied one to Ms Guest reasonably promptly once the issue was raised. 2 Section 109 RTA 3 T.M.T. New Zealand Limited v Sweeney & Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182
However, it is a breach that warrants an award of exemplary damages. The limitations of the property and the fact that it was going to be a temporary tenancy does not remove the landlord’s obligation to provide a smoke alarm.
Smoke alarms are a simple, effective, low cost means of protecting life and property. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their duty to provide complying smoke alarms in all residential tenancies.
I will award exemplary damages of $750.00. Stairs
There is a small set of internal stairs in the home that provides access to the bedroom in the ‘loft’.
The stairs were not completely secured.
Ms Guest, who was pregnant, was uncomfortable about using the stairs, particularly at night.
Ms Cookson submitted that the construction of the tiny home was not entirely complete when Ms Guest moved into the property, and that Ms Guest was aware of this. She submitted that she would have been happy to secure the stairs if Ms Guest had asked.
Again, I acknowledge that the property has its inherent limitations and quirks (including an external toilet) but the fact that the stairs move to some extent is a health and safety issue.
Landlords must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises 4 .
Fortunately Ms Guest did not suffer an accident on the stairs during the tenancy, but the issue is serious enough to warrant a small award of compensation.
I will award $200.00. Termination
The landlord issued notice on the grounds that the premises were required for use by a member of the landlord’s family (his daughter Ms Emarn Cookson).
At the hearing Ms Cookson explained that: a. Ms Guest stopped coming to work due to health problems. 4 Section 45(1)(c) RTA b. They needed to bring in another worker to keep the farm going. c. The worker would move into where Ms Cookson is currently living, and Ms Cookson would move into the tiny home. d. Ms Cookson has lived in the tiny home before, including over winter, and she has no problem living there.
Ms Guest submitted that the notice was retaliatory because she received it within a couple of weeks of issuing a 14-day breach notice to the landlord and then filing this application.
I acknowledge Ms Guest’s suspicion about the motivation for the termination notice given the timing of it.
However, landlords are entitled to give notice to terminate a tenancy if the premises are required as a place of residence by the landlord or a member of the landlord’s family.
Ms Cookson’s explanation of her need for the tiny home is credible.
It is not proven that the notice was retaliatory. Filing fee
The tenant has been successful in this application is entitled to recover the filing fee of $20.44 5 .
It is noted that the landlord intends to file a cross-application for vacated damage, missing chattels, etc. That application will be dealt with separately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666889 — Healthy homes at 1236 Ruapekapeka Road, Kawakawa 0182

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666889 — Healthy homes at 1236 Ruapekapeka Road, Kawakawa 0182

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions