What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4721290 about?

The tribunal order states: Hong Nguyen must pay [The tenant/s] $1,283.30 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4721290?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no curtains for a mont…: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Healthy Homes Information Provided: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish On The Front Lawn: $242.86 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721290?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9926309-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4721290 about?

The tribunal order states: Hong Nguyen must pay [The tenant/s] $1,283.30 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4721290?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no curtains for a mont…: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Healthy Homes Information Provided: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish On The Front Lawn: $242.86 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721290?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9926309-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4721290 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4721290 — net $1,283.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
rubbish on the front lawn	$242.86	rubbish on the front lawn
Compensation: no curtains for a month	$20.00	no curtains for a month
Compensation: bond not lodged as required	$200.00	bond not lodged as required
Healthy Homes information provided	$600.00	Healthy Homes information provided
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$200.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,283.30
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,283.30

Order

Hong Nguyen must pay [The tenant/s] $1,283.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The rest of the tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement on 2 August 2023 which was due to end in January 2024. The parties reached an agreement the tenants would move out on 25 October, and they left on 28 October 2023 after they borrowed a van to remove the last of the large items. The landlord then changed her mind and said she would be claiming rent until January 2024. The tenants filed an application for an order reducing the fixed term tenancy. They have also claimed compensation because of breaches by the landlord. The questions I have to decide are: • Did the parties reach an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Did the landlord breach her duties around the tenancy agreement and the bond? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the parties reach an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy?

While the exact details that prompted the early end of the fixed term tenancy are not clear, the messages exchanged show there was an agreement the fixed term tenancy would end on 25 October 2023. The tenants needed some extra days to arrange for a van, but they were all moved out on 28 October 2023. The tenants relied on the landlord’s agreement and found somewhere else to live. The landlord is not allowed to change her mind because that would be very unfair to the tenants. I find the landlord cannot claim rent for November, December and January.

Should the tenants get compensation?

The tenants said there was old carpet out the front of the house which they said housed spiders, mosquitos and insects. They asked the landlord to remove the carpet and a large iron rod by message on 16 August, but this was never done. Both the rod and the carpet were a nuisance throughout the tenancy. The landlord did not recall being asked to remove the rod. She said the tenants agreed they would use the carpet to stop the lawn growing but she did not have this unusual request recorded in writing. I have seen the photos. It is clear to me the carpet was rubbish. I find the presence of rubbish on the front lawn was inconvenient, unsightly, and possibly a safety hazard. The tenants were paying for a front garden without rubbish so there is also a loss of amenity. I allow $20 a week as fair compensation.
I accept the landlord took an unreasonably long time to replace two mouldy curtains. I allow compensation for the cold winter month the tenants did not have curtains in the amount of $20.
There is insufficient information from the tenant to prove the house was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants claimed there was a problem with the shower, the letter box and the fridge. The landlord does not agree the tenants told her about these issues. This is the tenants’ claim to prove and there is nothing in writing, in the message or emails, to support the claim. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants claimed the landlord was unhelpful when it came to having the fibre reconnected at the tenancy premises, leading to an unreasonable delay. Again, this is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have read the messages provided by the landlord and the tenants. It took 25 days for the fibre issue to be resolved and the messages from the landlord to the neighbour and chorus seem timely and helpful. I do not find this claim is proved and it is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach her duties around the tenancy agreement and the bond?

The landlord was required to provide Healthy Homes information to the tenants in the tenancy agreement. This is so the tenants would know if the house complied with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) before they move in. It is agreed evidence the landlord provided an amended tenancy agreement that was missing all the pages relating to the landlord’s compliance with the HHS. This is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord also agreed she did not lodge the bond within the 23 working days required by the RTA. See sections 13A(1CA), 13A(1F), and 19 RTA.
I note that I cannot make orders against the landlord for failing to provide a heat pump because the compliance date for this tenancy (which started after 28 August 2022 and before 2 March 2025) is 120 days after the start of the tenancy. This tenancy only lasted around 90 days. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenants have asked for compensation, which I can allow of there was a loss. I find there was a loss. The tenants said the house was very cold and they may not have signed the tenancy agreement if they knew the landlord had 120 days to install a heat pump, effectively leaving them without good heating for the rest of winter. I find $50 a week for the 12 weeks the tenancy lasted is fair compensation.
I find there was inconvenience and stress around the bond being lodged late as well, because the landlord was trying to organise this as the tenants moved out, adding to an already stressful and busy time. There was no good reason for the delay. I find $200 is fair compensation for this.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment. 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.
The tenants have claimed compensation. They said they found dealing with the landlord unreasonably difficult. They are also concerned that she made racist comments. I have considered the messages, the emails, the evidence provided at the hearing, and the landlord’s position at the hearing that that she did not do anything wrong.
I do not find the tenants have proved the landlord was racist and this part of the claim is dismissed.
I do find the landlord changing her mind about the end of the fixed term tenancy and her threats to charge rent until January and to get a bailiff were a breach of quiet enjoyment. The weekly rent was $400, and I allow $200 which seems fair compensation for the last days of the tenancy. 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. I did not discuss suppression with the landlord because she is not the most successful party, and because there is public interest in her being named because of the breaches of the RTA. See section 95A RTA.
No order is made for the bond because the landlord filed a cross application yesterday which the tenant and I have not seen yet. I understand from the landlord this is for rent arrears and for the refund of the bond. It is better that the bond is refunded once the landlord’s application has been heard.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4721290 — net $1,283.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
rubbish on the front lawn	$242.86	rubbish on the front lawn
Compensation: no curtains for a month	$20.00	no curtains for a month
Compensation: bond not lodged as required	$200.00	bond not lodged as required
Healthy Homes information provided	$600.00	Healthy Homes information provided
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$200.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,283.30
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,283.30

Order

Hong Nguyen must pay [The tenant/s] $1,283.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The rest of the tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement on 2 August 2023 which was due to end in January 2024. The parties reached an agreement the tenants would move out on 25 October, and they left on 28 October 2023 after they borrowed a van to remove the last of the large items. The landlord then changed her mind and said she would be claiming rent until January 2024. The tenants filed an application for an order reducing the fixed term tenancy. They have also claimed compensation because of breaches by the landlord. The questions I have to decide are: • Did the parties reach an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Did the landlord breach her duties around the tenancy agreement and the bond? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the parties reach an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy?

While the exact details that prompted the early end of the fixed term tenancy are not clear, the messages exchanged show there was an agreement the fixed term tenancy would end on 25 October 2023. The tenants needed some extra days to arrange for a van, but they were all moved out on 28 October 2023. The tenants relied on the landlord’s agreement and found somewhere else to live. The landlord is not allowed to change her mind because that would be very unfair to the tenants. I find the landlord cannot claim rent for November, December and January.

Should the tenants get compensation?

The tenants said there was old carpet out the front of the house which they said housed spiders, mosquitos and insects. They asked the landlord to remove the carpet and a large iron rod by message on 16 August, but this was never done. Both the rod and the carpet were a nuisance throughout the tenancy. The landlord did not recall being asked to remove the rod. She said the tenants agreed they would use the carpet to stop the lawn growing but she did not have this unusual request recorded in writing. I have seen the photos. It is clear to me the carpet was rubbish. I find the presence of rubbish on the front lawn was inconvenient, unsightly, and possibly a safety hazard. The tenants were paying for a front garden without rubbish so there is also a loss of amenity. I allow $20 a week as fair compensation.
I accept the landlord took an unreasonably long time to replace two mouldy curtains. I allow compensation for the cold winter month the tenants did not have curtains in the amount of $20.
There is insufficient information from the tenant to prove the house was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants claimed there was a problem with the shower, the letter box and the fridge. The landlord does not agree the tenants told her about these issues. This is the tenants’ claim to prove and there is nothing in writing, in the message or emails, to support the claim. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants claimed the landlord was unhelpful when it came to having the fibre reconnected at the tenancy premises, leading to an unreasonable delay. Again, this is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have read the messages provided by the landlord and the tenants. It took 25 days for the fibre issue to be resolved and the messages from the landlord to the neighbour and chorus seem timely and helpful. I do not find this claim is proved and it is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach her duties around the tenancy agreement and the bond?

The landlord was required to provide Healthy Homes information to the tenants in the tenancy agreement. This is so the tenants would know if the house complied with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) before they move in. It is agreed evidence the landlord provided an amended tenancy agreement that was missing all the pages relating to the landlord’s compliance with the HHS. This is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord also agreed she did not lodge the bond within the 23 working days required by the RTA. See sections 13A(1CA), 13A(1F), and 19 RTA.
I note that I cannot make orders against the landlord for failing to provide a heat pump because the compliance date for this tenancy (which started after 28 August 2022 and before 2 March 2025) is 120 days after the start of the tenancy. This tenancy only lasted around 90 days. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenants have asked for compensation, which I can allow of there was a loss. I find there was a loss. The tenants said the house was very cold and they may not have signed the tenancy agreement if they knew the landlord had 120 days to install a heat pump, effectively leaving them without good heating for the rest of winter. I find $50 a week for the 12 weeks the tenancy lasted is fair compensation.
I find there was inconvenience and stress around the bond being lodged late as well, because the landlord was trying to organise this as the tenants moved out, adding to an already stressful and busy time. There was no good reason for the delay. I find $200 is fair compensation for this.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment. 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.
The tenants have claimed compensation. They said they found dealing with the landlord unreasonably difficult. They are also concerned that she made racist comments. I have considered the messages, the emails, the evidence provided at the hearing, and the landlord’s position at the hearing that that she did not do anything wrong.
I do not find the tenants have proved the landlord was racist and this part of the claim is dismissed.
I do find the landlord changing her mind about the end of the fixed term tenancy and her threats to charge rent until January and to get a bailiff were a breach of quiet enjoyment. The weekly rent was $400, and I allow $200 which seems fair compensation for the last days of the tenancy. 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. I did not discuss suppression with the landlord because she is not the most successful party, and because there is public interest in her being named because of the breaches of the RTA. See section 95A RTA.
No order is made for the bond because the landlord filed a cross application yesterday which the tenant and I have not seen yet. I understand from the landlord this is for rent arrears and for the refund of the bond. It is better that the bond is refunded once the landlord’s application has been heard.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721290 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721290 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the parties reach an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Did the landlord breach her duties around the tenancy agreement and the bond?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the parties reach an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Did the landlord breach her duties around the tenancy agreement and the bond?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions