What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4735001 about?

The tribunal order states: Lifestyle Rental Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,090.44

How much money was awarded in case 4735001?

Compensation: for power from 21 July…: $970.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4735001?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4735001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9771107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4735001 about?

The tribunal order states: Lifestyle Rental Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,090.44

How much money was awarded in case 4735001?

Compensation: for power from 21 July…: $970.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4735001?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4735001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9771107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4735001 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4735001 — net $1,090.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for power from 21 July - 20 November 2023	$970.00	for power from 21 July - 20 November 2023
Exemplary damages: breach section 15 RTA	$100.00	breach section 15 RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,090.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,090.44

Order

Lifestyle Rental Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,090.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by a director Mr Ryan and by Ms Robertson-Burns.
The tenants claim that the landlord did not have their hot water cylinder checked again by qualified people. This is important because the tenants have had very high power bills during the second half of their tenancy. The tenants want the problem fixed and they want compensation for the extra money they have paid for power. They are also concerned that the landlord did not properly advise them of a change of management during the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Why have the power bills been high? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Did the landlord breach the obligation to advise the tenants there was a change of management during the tenancy?

Why have the power bills been high?

The tenants have asked for a work order because they did not believe the landlord was taking their concerns about their unusually high power bills seriously. Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), 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) RTA.
I do not find that a work order is necessary. By the time we had the hearing electricians, a builder and a plumber had all been on site. The electricians were there more than once. I find the landlord had complied with its obligations to investigate and carry out repairs.
The electrician gave evidence as a witness. His evidence was helpful and credible. He said no fault was found on the first visit but the thermostat was high. He turned it down and thought that would resolve the issue. It did not, and on the second visit it was discovered that hot water was coming out an overflow pipe, probably causing the hot water cylinder to constantly heat cold water. He said this was the result of a calcified valve, which is only something a plumber can see. The valve was fixed and the tenants have not had a monthly power bill since then.
The tenants and the electrician agreed at the hearing that the latest daily readings from their power provider still seem high. The parties briefly discussed whether power theft was a possibility. I find that at the date of the hearing the most likely cause of the high power bills was a fault with the hot water cylinder. I am confident the parties will continue to investigate the power issue without a work order. If not, the tenants can make a further application for compensation.

Should the tenants get compensation?

I have not found a breach by the landlord, which means I cannot consider compensation for any delay in attending to the issue. I can still consider the claim for compensation for the excessive power bills. This is because the tenants, through no fault of their own, have had costs which they would not have had if the hot water cylinder was working properly.
The tenants have claimed $3000 compensation. We considered the power bills at the hearing. It is impossible to tell retrospectively when the hot water cylinder started using more power. However it seems to me, from an examination of the power bills, that there was normal usage from March – July. I have not included February in my considerations because that was only a part month. The average power cost per month for those five months is $185 per month. It seems most likely to me the power bills started increasing in the July/August month. I have deducted the average of $185 from each power bill from July/August until November and ordered the landlord to pay the difference as compensation (eg power bill of $508 - $185 = $307 compensation for the month). Did the landlord breach the obligation to advise the tenants there was a change of management during the tenancy?
When the tenants signed a tenancy agreement they had a property manager, Polished. Lifestyle Rental Properties Ltd was listed as the owner. In June Polished advised in writing that the owners would manage the tenancy, starting that same day. The tenants did not get any information from Lifestyle Rental Properties Ltd until August, including the new bank information. This meant the tenants continued paying rent to Polished because they had not other option.
I find this was a breach of the landlord’s duties under section 15 RTA, which states that where there is a change of landlord during the tenancy the landlord shall advise of its full name and contact address, mobile and email information, and an address for service, within 10 working days. The address for service is especially important because that is where the tenant is required to serve notices. Failure to provide this information is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded in the maximum amount of $750. See schedule 1A RTA.
Section 109 RTA sets out the requirements for the Tribunal when considering exemplary damages. The landlord eventually sent the notice, so it knew what was required. I find it acted intentionally. There was minimal effect on the tenants because they had sufficient contact details to arrange maintenance and file an application with the Tenancy Tribunal. It is in tenants’ interests that they have clear information from landlords during the tenancy and there is public interest in exemplary damages being awarded when landlords do not comply with the RTA. I allow $100, at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any pervious breach by the landlord. 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, and because they have not breached the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4735001 — net $1,090.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for power from 21 July - 20 November 2023	$970.00	for power from 21 July - 20 November 2023
Exemplary damages: breach section 15 RTA	$100.00	breach section 15 RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,090.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,090.44

Order

Lifestyle Rental Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,090.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by a director Mr Ryan and by Ms Robertson-Burns.
The tenants claim that the landlord did not have their hot water cylinder checked again by qualified people. This is important because the tenants have had very high power bills during the second half of their tenancy. The tenants want the problem fixed and they want compensation for the extra money they have paid for power. They are also concerned that the landlord did not properly advise them of a change of management during the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Why have the power bills been high? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Did the landlord breach the obligation to advise the tenants there was a change of management during the tenancy?

Why have the power bills been high?

The tenants have asked for a work order because they did not believe the landlord was taking their concerns about their unusually high power bills seriously. Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), 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) RTA.
I do not find that a work order is necessary. By the time we had the hearing electricians, a builder and a plumber had all been on site. The electricians were there more than once. I find the landlord had complied with its obligations to investigate and carry out repairs.
The electrician gave evidence as a witness. His evidence was helpful and credible. He said no fault was found on the first visit but the thermostat was high. He turned it down and thought that would resolve the issue. It did not, and on the second visit it was discovered that hot water was coming out an overflow pipe, probably causing the hot water cylinder to constantly heat cold water. He said this was the result of a calcified valve, which is only something a plumber can see. The valve was fixed and the tenants have not had a monthly power bill since then.
The tenants and the electrician agreed at the hearing that the latest daily readings from their power provider still seem high. The parties briefly discussed whether power theft was a possibility. I find that at the date of the hearing the most likely cause of the high power bills was a fault with the hot water cylinder. I am confident the parties will continue to investigate the power issue without a work order. If not, the tenants can make a further application for compensation.

Should the tenants get compensation?

I have not found a breach by the landlord, which means I cannot consider compensation for any delay in attending to the issue. I can still consider the claim for compensation for the excessive power bills. This is because the tenants, through no fault of their own, have had costs which they would not have had if the hot water cylinder was working properly.
The tenants have claimed $3000 compensation. We considered the power bills at the hearing. It is impossible to tell retrospectively when the hot water cylinder started using more power. However it seems to me, from an examination of the power bills, that there was normal usage from March – July. I have not included February in my considerations because that was only a part month. The average power cost per month for those five months is $185 per month. It seems most likely to me the power bills started increasing in the July/August month. I have deducted the average of $185 from each power bill from July/August until November and ordered the landlord to pay the difference as compensation (eg power bill of $508 - $185 = $307 compensation for the month). Did the landlord breach the obligation to advise the tenants there was a change of management during the tenancy?
When the tenants signed a tenancy agreement they had a property manager, Polished. Lifestyle Rental Properties Ltd was listed as the owner. In June Polished advised in writing that the owners would manage the tenancy, starting that same day. The tenants did not get any information from Lifestyle Rental Properties Ltd until August, including the new bank information. This meant the tenants continued paying rent to Polished because they had not other option.
I find this was a breach of the landlord’s duties under section 15 RTA, which states that where there is a change of landlord during the tenancy the landlord shall advise of its full name and contact address, mobile and email information, and an address for service, within 10 working days. The address for service is especially important because that is where the tenant is required to serve notices. Failure to provide this information is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded in the maximum amount of $750. See schedule 1A RTA.
Section 109 RTA sets out the requirements for the Tribunal when considering exemplary damages. The landlord eventually sent the notice, so it knew what was required. I find it acted intentionally. There was minimal effect on the tenants because they had sufficient contact details to arrange maintenance and file an application with the Tenancy Tribunal. It is in tenants’ interests that they have clear information from landlords during the tenancy and there is public interest in exemplary damages being awarded when landlords do not comply with the RTA. I allow $100, at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any pervious breach by the landlord. 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, and because they have not breached the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4735001 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4735001 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Why have the power bills been high?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Why have the power bills been high?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions