What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674509 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Te Atiwei Ririnui at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4674509?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674509?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9968789-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674509 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Te Atiwei Ririnui at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4674509?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674509?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9968789-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4674509 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674509 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674509 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Order

The tenancy of Te Atiwei Ririnui at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay Te Atiwei Ririnui $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for Termination of the tenancy.
The Tenant has applied for work orders, breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation and exemplary damages. Background
This was a periodic tenancy that commenced on 9 May 2022. The property was over 60 years old. The parties agreed that on 19 December 2022, the Landlord would commence repairs at the property (“[Property 1]”) and the Tenant would move out temporarily until these were completed. The Tenant moved into another property managed by the Landlord (“[Property 2]”).
On or about 25 April 2023, the Tenant discovered there was a lack of floor insulation when contractors attended the property to install an aerial. The Tenant wrote to the Landlord stating that he did not want to move back to the [Property 1] because of the lack of underflooring insulation which had a detrimental impact on his health. The Landlord assessed whether underfloor insulation could be installed but then confirmed on 18 October 2023, they were unable to meet this request.
On 19 October 2023, the Tenant confirmed via email correspondence that he was now unable to decide whether to terminate his tenancy. On 26 October 2023, the Landlord wrote to the Tenant confirming their understanding that the Tenant agreed to end the [Property 1] tenancy. They would send a written Tenancy Agreement for the [Property 2] shortly which would state the tenancy commenced on 29 October 2023.
On 26 October 2023, the Tenant wrote to the Landlord stating he was unable to decide whether to terminate the tenancy at the [Property 1] because he had filed an application to the Tribunal.
The Tenant remains living at the [Property 2] and the [Property 1] is vacant. Termination of the tenancy
The Landlord submits the tenancy has ended but they are uncertain whether the termination date was in April 2023 or in October 2023. In April 2023, the Tenant emailed the Landlord advising that he had made an informed decision to end the tenancy at the [Property 1]. This agreement was not formalised with a new Tenancy Agreement. In October 2023, the Tenant retracted this decision advising that he was undecided as to whether the tenancy should be terminated as he was awaiting the Tribunal decision.
The Landlord submits the Tenant has not resided at the property since December 2022, the Tenant pays rent for the [Property 2] only, the Tenant has made it clear that he does not wish to return to the property, the Tenant has been provided with a Tenancy Agreement for the [Property 2] and the Landlord continues to hold the property at [Property 1] as a sign of good faith. The Tenant never signed the new tenancy agreement for the [Property 2].
The Tenant submits that he wants to move back to the [Property 1] if the insulation in the ceiling and wall is installed. The Tenant has applied for a work order for insulation to be installed. The Landlord has advised him that the property is exempt from insulation in the floor and ceiling. The Landlord has offered alternate properties for the Tenant to move into however for various reasons the Tenant has declined them.
Section 51(2B)(3)-(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) provides: (2B)- A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 28 days notice. (30) Every notice to terminate a tenancy shall- a) Be in writing; and b) Identify the premises to which it relates; and c) Specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and d) If the notice is given by the landlord, set out the reasons for termination; and e) Be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that partys agent. (4) In any notice to terminate a tenancy, no special form of words shall be required; and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.
Section 55 and 56(2) of the RTA provides: Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In considering the evidence, I find the email correspondence sent by the Tenant in April 2023 was not a valid notice to terminate as there was not statement of the Tenants particular vacate date. The Tenant wishes to move back to the [Property 1] if the insulation is installed and has sought a work order. For reasons outlined later in this decision, the work orders are not granted. The Tenant however has not made any rent payments towards the [Property 1] since they moved out in December 2022. The Tenant has been paying rent for only the [Property 2]. There is no dispute by the Tenant in respect of rent payments for the [Property 1].
As the Tenant refuses to terminate the tenancy at the [Property 1], the rent obligations for the Tenant still continue. The Tenant has not paid rent since December 2022. As rent was 21 days in arrears or more on the day the Landlord filed their application to the Tribunal, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated as at the date of the hearing being 16 January 2024. Work orders
The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide insulation in the walls or underflooring at the property. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

The tenant acknowledged that while the ceiling and underfloor lacked insulation, they were aware that the property was exempt.
The Landlord submitted insulation was not required pursuant to the Healthy Homes Standards because it was not practical to install.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided evidence that the Landlord has failed to meet their obligations to install insulation in the underflooring and ceiling. If they had provided an independent Healthy Home Standards assessment to confirm the property was not compliant for this reason, a work order could be justified. The tenancy is also terminated so a work order is not required.
The claim for work orders is dismissed. Breach of Healthy Homes standards
The Tenant submitted that when he initially moved into the [Property 1] in May 2022, the property was not Healthy Homes compliant despite. The Tenant discovered in April 2023, that the underflooring lacked insulation when two contractors began removing the floor to install an aerial. The Tenant submitted the uncomfortable living conditions during the winter, the condensation, mould on the windows and ceiling leak in the kitchen indicated that the home is in breach of the standards. There was no independent Healthy Homes Assessment report from the Tenant to substantiate this.
The Landlord submitted that when the Tenant moved in, the initial Healthy Homes certificate provided to the Tenant was incorrect. This was a genuine mistake on the Landlords behalf as a result of their system, not updating information promptly. Once this was corrected, the Landlord submitted the home was compliant however exempt from insulation in the ceiling and wall.
In considering the evidence, whilst I accept the home is Healthy Homes compliant, the information provided to the Tenant was incorrect. I accept this was likely to be a genuine mistake that the Landlord promptly rectified to show the exemption was applied. This was not a substantial error whereby insulation was not installed at the start of the tenancy and was then required to be installed after the certificate was rectified. There is no loss suffered to the Tenant either way as the Landlord has never been required to install insulation in the underfloor and ceiling. For these reasons, I have not made an award for this claim. Compensation
The Tenant has claimed $15,000.00 in compensation because the Landlord repeatedly failed to action repairs or action them in a timely manner. The Tenant had to repeatedly escalate requests because the Landlord was at times non-responsive. The first Property Manager for example was notified by the Tenant about cladding repairs on 2 May 2022. The Property Manager attended a few days later to assess and then the Tenant never heard back from them. The Tenant followed this up at a hui with the Landlord on 7 July 2022 and had to call the Landlords contractors directly. The cladding issues contributed to the perpetually cold conditions of the house.
The Tenant also submitted there was no standing carport at the property which the Landlord assured would occur. No timeframe was provided to the Tenant.
In June 2022, the Tenant submitted there was a leak in the kitchen ceiling which the tenant notified the Landlord of immediately. This was repaired on 23 September 2022 however during this time, there was excessive mould growing in the property due to the leak. His bed was damaged from mould and the Landlord subsequently compensated the Tenant for a new bed.
On 30 August 2022, the Tenant notified the Landlord about the leak, condensation and mould in the property. There was no response.
The Tenant provided evidence of correspondence between the parties of the Tenant notifying the Landlord of repairs and responses provided from the Landlord.
The Landlord submitted they aim to deliver good homes and attend to repairs as quickly as possible. They acknowledged they do not always meet their service standards and they have ‘dropped the ball’ in terms of their responses at times. There was a process however with every repair job they undertake which involves multiple people. The scoping also required multiple visits. The Landlord submitted they discussed the communication issues with the Tenant and agreed that the Landlord would give a timeframe of when a repair would be implemented. If this was not executed, the Tenant needed to contact the Landlord if it was delayed by one day.
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the RTA”) refers to a landlord’s obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age, and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Notably, the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, specify the minimum standards of fitness for houses which include a requirement that every house be free from dampness (regulation 15).
A landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect within a reasonable timeframe which is reasonable depending on the gravity of the problem and the genuine attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and resolve the issue.
To claim compensation, a party must prove each of the following factors to the required evidential standard: a. A breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. b. That the breach caused the damage. c. That the damage was a foreseeable consequence of the breach. d. The Tenant suffered loss as a result of the leaks. e. The amount of the loss.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair in terms of the following: a) Failure to repair the cladding in a timely manner as Tenant notified in May 2022 and the cladding was repaired in July 2022; b) The standing carport was not reinstated in a timely manner; c) Failure to repair the water leak in the ceiling in a timely manner as the Tenant notified the Landlord in June 2022 and this was not repaired until 23 September 2022. This resulted in extensive mould in the gib board of the ceiling. d) Failure to remove the mould in the property when notified on 30 August 2022. The Tenant submitted as a result of these breaches the conditions of the house aggravated his gout and this was supported by medical certificates.
The Tenant sought $15,000.00 in compensation however there was no break- down as to how they calculated this amount. I find the amount is excessive.
The Landlord submitted they compensated the Tenant for his bed that was ruined due to the mould and I take this into account. I am satisfied that the delay in the Landlord’s response to the repairs contributed to some extent to the cold conditions of the house. I am also mindful however that the property is over 60 years old. Cold conditions, mould and condensation are characteristic of older properties.
The medical evidence provided by the Tenant was based upon information given by the Tenant to his Doctor about the conditions of the house. The Doctor confirmed this could be a cause of the Tenants gout flaring up however there are other known causes which was not ruled out in the medical certificate.
I take into account all of these factors and I am mindful that the Landlord is a Trust that has its own procedures to ensure there is minimal wastage of public funds. This may lead to delays which are not aligned with the Tenant’s timeframes.
I therefore find the appropriate amount to award is $500.00 for the failure to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. I find this would have caused the cold conditions in the property however I have not compensated anything further because the medical evidence was not entirely persuasive.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
Te Atiwei Ririnui claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The Tenant submitted that the property failed to comply with Healthy Home standards because the floor and walls lacked insulation. They did not provide an independent Healthy Homes Assessment to verify this. The Landlord submitted they were exempt from this and had a Healthy Homes certificate to substantiate this.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant did not provide any evidence to support his claim that the property was not compliant with a Healthy Homes Assessment. The onus is on the party bringing their claim to prove their claim without corroborating evidence. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
As the Tenant has not been wholly successful, the Tenant shall pay their own filing fee. The Tenant did not seek name suppression.
As the landlord has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674509 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674509 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions