What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4682311 about?

The tribunal order states: Laura Mursell must pay [The tenant/s] $4,463.30 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4682311?

Compensation: from 16 May 2023 - 5 O…: $2,042.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682311?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10006417-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4682311 about?

The tribunal order states: Laura Mursell must pay [The tenant/s] $4,463.30 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4682311?

Compensation: from 16 May 2023 - 5 O…: $2,042.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682311?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10006417-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4682311 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4682311 — net $4,463.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: from 16 May 2023 - 5 October 2023 at	$2,042.86	from 16 May 2023 - 5 October 2023 at
Exemplary damages: breach HHS	$2,400.00	RTA. Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord should pay $2400 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,463.30
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,463.30

Order

Laura Mursell must pay [The tenant/s] $4,463.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other tenant claims are dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for rent is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This tenancy lasted 26 weeks because the tenants negotiated an early release from their fixed term because the house was so cold. The tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages because the house was draughty, damp and mouldy during their tenancy. The landlord does not agree to the claims. The questions I have to decide are; • Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes standards? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Is the landlord allowed to forge the tenant’s signature?

Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes standards?

The tenants claim 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). They consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 4 August 2023 because the new tenancy started after 28 August 2022. 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. 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(1A) RTA.
The tenants had photos, text messages and a 14 day notice proving that there were very old windows, and rotten window frames and that the landlord knew about these. The bathroom extractor fan was not working adequately during the tenancy either. The tenants asked generally for a healthy homes assessment in July because they were so worried about the state of the house, but the landlord never followed up about this.
The landlord said the house is a 1930s house with very old joinery and everything was fixed either during the tenancy or after the tenants moved out. The only evidence provided by the landlord was some photos taken after the end of the tenancy. The landlord said she had not checked the draught stopping or the extractor fan at the start of this tenancy. She submitted that the tenants thought the house was fine until they decided they wanted to leave early.
I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submissions and evidence. I find there was a breach of the draught stopping standard. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. She did not answer the requests for help, and she did not complete repairs with the 14 days allowed after the 14 day notice was given. Choosing not to investigate and repair was a deliberate act.
The effect on the tenants was profound. They tried to silicon window frames and bought draught stopping. They described how cold the house was after a whole window and rotten window frame fell out and this was only partially boarded up, making it impossible to find new tenants for that room. They said their physical and mental health suffered. It was hard to study. Relationships suffered. One tenant said the experience was heart breaking.
It is in tenants’ interests that they live in warm, dry houses and there is public interest in the landlords paying exemplary damages where there is a breach of the RTA. Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord should pay $2400 in exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.
The tenants are also concerned that they had to mop up rainwater that came through a window that fell out in the last 5 weeks of the tenancy. This moisture ingress arises out of the draught stopping breach so I have not considered these as separate HHS claims.

Should the tenants get compensation?

The tenants have claimed compensation for a number of breaches. They have not proved there were no working smoke alarms. The landlord did not increase the rent unlawfully. I am not persuaded there were breaches relating to the tenancy agreement. These claims are dismissed.
I am persuaded the tenants should get compensation because they were paying for a house that was HHS compliant and instead they got a house that needed repairs to the windows, repairs to the extractor fan, and had inadequate draft stopping. I find compensation in the amount of $100 a week to be reasonable. I have allowed this from 16 May 2023 which is the earliest message from the tenants to the landlord advising about the issues. Is the landlord allowed to forge the tenant’s signature?
During the hearing the landlord agreed she copied one tenant’s signature onto a change of tenant form. I do not have jurisdiction around forgery and the tenant should contact the police or the compliance team at MBIE if she wants to take this further. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party.
The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in her being named because of the breaches of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4682311 — net $4,463.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: from 16 May 2023 - 5 October 2023 at	$2,042.86	from 16 May 2023 - 5 October 2023 at
Exemplary damages: breach HHS	$2,400.00	RTA. Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord should pay $2400 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,463.30
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,463.30

Order

Laura Mursell must pay [The tenant/s] $4,463.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other tenant claims are dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for rent is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This tenancy lasted 26 weeks because the tenants negotiated an early release from their fixed term because the house was so cold. The tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages because the house was draughty, damp and mouldy during their tenancy. The landlord does not agree to the claims. The questions I have to decide are; • Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes standards? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Is the landlord allowed to forge the tenant’s signature?

Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes standards?

The tenants claim 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). They consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 4 August 2023 because the new tenancy started after 28 August 2022. 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. 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(1A) RTA.
The tenants had photos, text messages and a 14 day notice proving that there were very old windows, and rotten window frames and that the landlord knew about these. The bathroom extractor fan was not working adequately during the tenancy either. The tenants asked generally for a healthy homes assessment in July because they were so worried about the state of the house, but the landlord never followed up about this.
The landlord said the house is a 1930s house with very old joinery and everything was fixed either during the tenancy or after the tenants moved out. The only evidence provided by the landlord was some photos taken after the end of the tenancy. The landlord said she had not checked the draught stopping or the extractor fan at the start of this tenancy. She submitted that the tenants thought the house was fine until they decided they wanted to leave early.
I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submissions and evidence. I find there was a breach of the draught stopping standard. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. She did not answer the requests for help, and she did not complete repairs with the 14 days allowed after the 14 day notice was given. Choosing not to investigate and repair was a deliberate act.
The effect on the tenants was profound. They tried to silicon window frames and bought draught stopping. They described how cold the house was after a whole window and rotten window frame fell out and this was only partially boarded up, making it impossible to find new tenants for that room. They said their physical and mental health suffered. It was hard to study. Relationships suffered. One tenant said the experience was heart breaking.
It is in tenants’ interests that they live in warm, dry houses and there is public interest in the landlords paying exemplary damages where there is a breach of the RTA. Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord should pay $2400 in exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.
The tenants are also concerned that they had to mop up rainwater that came through a window that fell out in the last 5 weeks of the tenancy. This moisture ingress arises out of the draught stopping breach so I have not considered these as separate HHS claims.

Should the tenants get compensation?

The tenants have claimed compensation for a number of breaches. They have not proved there were no working smoke alarms. The landlord did not increase the rent unlawfully. I am not persuaded there were breaches relating to the tenancy agreement. These claims are dismissed.
I am persuaded the tenants should get compensation because they were paying for a house that was HHS compliant and instead they got a house that needed repairs to the windows, repairs to the extractor fan, and had inadequate draft stopping. I find compensation in the amount of $100 a week to be reasonable. I have allowed this from 16 May 2023 which is the earliest message from the tenants to the landlord advising about the issues. Is the landlord allowed to forge the tenant’s signature?
During the hearing the landlord agreed she copied one tenant’s signature onto a change of tenant form. I do not have jurisdiction around forgery and the tenant should contact the police or the compliance team at MBIE if she wants to take this further. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party.
The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in her being named because of the breaches of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682311 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682311 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes standards?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes standards?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions