What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4742909 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4742909?

Smoke Alarms: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: rent rebate for 19 wee…: $950.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742909?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10173343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4742909 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4742909?

Smoke Alarms: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: rent rebate for 19 wee…: $950.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742909?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10173343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4742909 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742909 — net $5,770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of smoke alarm regs and TA- s45(1)(ba	$1,000.00	Breach of smoke alarm regs and TA- s45(1)(ba
Compensation: Breach of smoke alarm regs and TA	$100.00	A. 100.I also make an order for the landlord to pay a sum in general damages of $100.00 for the use of the tenants smoke alarms for the 18 weeks of the tenancy…
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain-s45(1)(b	$2,400.00	Failure to maintain-s45(1)(b
Compensation: rent rebate for 19 weeks for failure to maintain	$950.00	rent rebate for 19 weeks for failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HH info in tenancy agreement	$300.00	Failure to provide HH info in tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry-s48(2	$1,000.00	unlawful entry-s48(2
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee
Net award	$5,770.44
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,770.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742909 — net $5,770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of smoke alarm regs and TA- s45(1)(ba	$1,000.00	Breach of smoke alarm regs and TA- s45(1)(ba
Compensation: Breach of smoke alarm regs and TA	$100.00	A. 100.I also make an order for the landlord to pay a sum in general damages of $100.00 for the use of the tenants smoke alarms for the 18 weeks of the tenancy…
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain-s45(1)(b	$2,400.00	Failure to maintain-s45(1)(b
Compensation: rent rebate for 19 weeks for failure to maintain	$950.00	rent rebate for 19 weeks for failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HH info in tenancy agreement	$300.00	Failure to provide HH info in tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry-s48(2	$1,000.00	unlawful entry-s48(2
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee
Net award	$5,770.44
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,770.44

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
First Choice Property Management Limited As Agent For Lisa And Claude Iusitnmust pay [the respondents] $5,770.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the full hearing which was held on 26 February 2024.
The tenants appeared by phone due to ill health. The landlord appeared in person.
The tenants made an application on 6 October 2023. Their claims relate to alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), failing to provide HHS statements and insurance information in the tenancy agreement, failing to maintain the premises, failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under the RTA and the tenancy agreement in relation to smoke alarms and right of entry requirements, an application to reduce the fixed term tenancy to 6 October 2023, reimbursement of overpaid rent, reimbursement for overpaid break lease administration fees, compensation for the stress and inconvenience of having to move earlier than the end of the fixed term lease and reimbursement of the application fee.
The landlord made a cross application on 22 November 2023 for compensation for carpet repairs and cleaning as well as for the property manager’s time, exemplary damages for failing to give notice in writing, tampering of the smoke alarms and intentional damage to the carpet and reimbursement of the application fee. Suppression of names and identifying details
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenants as the successful party have been granted name suppression as it would not be in the interests of justice for their names and identifying details to be published when their successful application could lead to impediments to them being able to secure future tenancies when future landlords see that they took steps to uphold their statutory rights.
The landlord did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal that they may suffer extreme hardship nor that it would not be in the public interest if their name was made public. Therefore, as the unsuccessful party, the landlord’s application for name suppression and suppression of their identifying details is not granted.

BACKGROUND

This was a twelve-month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 3 June 2023 and was due to end on 4 June 2024.
The agreed rental was $500.00 per week.
The tenants say there was a dispute during the tenancy around the standard of the premises, and various defects, such as the tenancy not meeting the HHS. The tenants also say there was negotiation between the parties about a reduction in the term of the tenancy, because of the repair and maintenance issues not being adequately addressed.
The tenants handed back vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on 12 October 2023.
The tenants say the property did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), the landlord failed to provide HHS statements and insurance information in the tenancy agreement, the landlord failed to maintain the premises, the landlord failed to comply with its landlord’s obligations under the RTA and the tenancy agreement, they want their fixed term tenancy reduced to 6 October 2023 and reimbursement of overpaid rent, and compensation for the stress and inconvenience of having to move earlier than the end of the fixed term lease as well as reimbursement of the application fee. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
The landlord says its exit inspection raised some concerns for it in relation to the carpets needing repair and cleaning and the smoke alarms appeared to have been tampered with. It also claims it did not receive notice in writing from the tenants ending the tenancy for which it should receive exemplary damages and that it incurred property management expenses because of the tenants ending the fixed term tenancy early that it wants compensation for. Carpet repairs and cleaning
The landlord made claims for repairs to the carpet in bedroom 1 and carpet cleaning and provided quotes for the work to be undertaken.
Those claims are premature, as no costs have been incurred by the landlord.
I declined to award compensation. A new application may be made once the work has been done and invoices can be produced in evidence. Should the landlord be awarded exemplary damages for intentional damage to the carpet in the bedroom?
The landlord made claims for exemplary damages for alleged intentional damage by the tenants to the carpet in bedroom 1.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claimed the tenants intentionally lifted the carpet in bedroom 1 to investigation potential leaks and dampness. They had sent an email about a mouldy smell coming from the carpet around 6 September 2023. The tenants had also sent a 14-day notice to undertake other remedial work but 1 June 2023did not mention the mouldy carpet smell in bedroom 1.
The tenants denied cutting and lifting the carpet in the corner of bedroom 1 to investigate dampness issues.
The landlord provided video evidence that the carpet had been cut and lifted in the corner of bedroom 1. The video had been taken by the property manager after the tenants had vacated the premises. The commercial carpet cleaner engaged by the property manager had found the cut in the corner of the carpet when they were cleaning the carpet, sometime after the final inspection on 13 October 2023.
The entry inspection report dated 1 June 2023, and the exit inspection report, dated 12 October 2023, both record the carpet in bedroom 1 as being in “good condition with no stains”. The photographs in both inspection reports do not record cut or lifted carpet in the corner of this bedroom.
The landlords provided an invoice, dated 4 June 2023, as proof that it had the carpets commercially cleaned before the tenants’ tenancy commenced. It claimed the carpet cleaning company would have noticed the carpet cut and lifting in bedroom 1, as the commercial carpet cleaner sucks the carpet hard enough for it to lift if it is loose anywhere.
The landlord is relying on the tenants having raised this as a concern, and having investigated other issues themselves during the tenancy, to prove the tenants carelessly cut and lifted the carpet.
I do not find that the landlord has provided sufficient proof that the tenants caused this damage to the carpet intentionally or carelessly. While it is possible that the tenants intentionally cut the carpet, there had been other persons in the premises (carpet cleaners) that could have torn the carpet whilst it was being cleaned. Other persons may have also accessed the premises after the tenants had vacated.
For the reasons outlined in paragraphs 14 to 23 above, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for the alleged intentional damage to the carpet in bedroom 1. Tampering of smoke alarms
The landlord was made aware that the tenants had an issue with two of the smoke alarms not working from the start of their tenancy.
There was evidence produced that proved the tenants had taken one smoke alarm down to show the landlord during a property inspection, as it was simpler to show the landlord the smoke alarm did not work and was pass the replacement date.
The tenants gave evidence they had replaced two of defective smoke alarms, which they took with them at the end of their tenancy. The original defective smoke alarms were left at the premises at the end of the tenancy in the same state as when the tenancy commenced.
Section 40(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states the tenants “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the tenant by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants were aware of their s40(1)(ca) obligations and informed the landlord they had installed their own smoke alarms during the tenancy because the smoke alarms were not functional and not compliant with the regulations. The landlord did not raise any issues or concerns about the tenants replacing the faulty and out of date smoke alarms, until the tenants made their application to the Tribunal.
There was no evidence that the tenants had “tampered” with the smoke alarms. The Oxford dictionary defines “tampered” as interfering with something to cause damage or make unauthorised alterations. The tenants had not damaged the smoke alarms provided by the landlord, nor had they modified them. They ensured all the smoke alarms were correctly placed and fully operational, for their own safety. This included the installation of two new smoke alarms, that were purchased, installed, and maintained at their own expense.
There is no doubt the tenants had one of the faulty smoke alarms down to show the property manager that it was broken, contained no batteries, had expired and was not working. This is evidenced in an email from the tenants to the property manager dated 29 August 2023 at 1:58pm. This action by the tenants cannot be defined as “tampering”.
To award compensation the Tribunal must be persuaded that the tenants have committed a breach of their obligations under the RTA. The landlord has failed to establish a breach and its claim is dismissed accordingly. Failure to give notice to end the tenancy in writing
Section 51(3) of the RTA confirms “every notice to terminate a tenancy shall be in writing; identify the premises to which it relates, specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises and be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent”.
The property manager says the tenants first discussed ending their fixed term tenancy with her during the 29 August 2023 property inspection. She confirmed that after the tenants raised this, she asked them to give her formal written notice requesting the fixed term tenancy be ended early and the date they were proposing to end the tenancy.
The property manager claims the tenants never provided written notice terminating their fixed term tenancy early and the tenants are in breach of s53(a) of the RTA. Accordingly, the landlord seeks compensation for this breach.
The tenants agree that no written notice was provided but provided evidence that the parties had discussed the early termination of the tenancy at the property inspection on 29 August 2023 and thereafter through a series of emails. The tenants also claim agreement had been reached between the parties that the tenancy would end on 6 October 2023 and more latterly that it would end on 12 October 2023, as they asked for an extension of time to finish moving their belongings and cleaning the premises.
The tenants argued that their failure to give formal written notice is a minor technical breach of the RTA that has not disadvantaged the landlord in any way. Further, the landlord knew the tenants had requested that their tenancy end early and the landlord could have and did not follow up its 29 August 2023 request for formal written notice from them.
There were emails from both parties submitted in evidence that prove the parties were both aware the tenants were extremely unhappy with the condition of the premises, claimed they had been suffering health issues because of the landlord’s failure to repair and maintain the premises and ultimately felt they had no other option but to break their fixed term tenancy early.
I am satisfied that, while the tenants did not technically give the landlord formal written notice terminating the tenancy, the parties had discussed the early termination of the tenancy at length in person and by email. There was no doubt for either party that the tenancy would end, initially on 6 October 2023 and more laterally on 12 October 2023. The landlord suffered no disadvantage or loss because of this technical breach. The landlord’s claim is dismissed accordingly. Are the tenants liable for the costs the landlord incurred because of the fixed term tenancy ending early and/or for the costs associated with preparation for or attendance at the Tribunal hearing?
A tenant that ends his/her/their fixed term tenancy early is deemed to have abandoned the premises before the end of the lease and is liable to pay rent for any period up to and including the date of the expiry of the fixed term or the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises, whichever is the earlier, unless otherwise agreed by both parties. See Section 61(3)(b) of the RTA.
Section 49 of the RTA confirms that if the tenant has abandoned the tenancy the landlord must take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss by seeking to find a new suitable tenant to take up the tenancy.
The tenant can also be ordered to pay reasonable compensation for any loss or damage that has resulted from the reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy. These costs include break lease administration fees, advertising fees and credit check fees.
The landlord required the tenants to pay $373.25 in break lease related administration fees, advertising fees and credit check fees. This fee is the basis of a claim by the tenant for reimbursement of $23.25 that they say they overpaid. This matter will be addressed in the tenant claims sections of this decision/Order.
The landlord has also sought compensation for property management fees incurred by the owners on 30 November 2023 for preparation, travel time and attendance at a Tribunal hearing in Whangarei.
There is no provision in the RTA for a landlord to claim compensation from a tenant for property management or agency costs for preparing for or attending the Tribunal hearing. It is a landlord’s choice to engage a property manager or agent and is a cost of doing business. It is not a cost that the tenant can be held liable for. (Refer to section 11 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).)
Accordingly, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for the additional property management fees it incurred in relation to the preparation for, attendance at and travel to the Tribunal hearing.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the Tribunal grant a reduction of the fixed term sought by the tenants and reimburse them for any overpaid rent?

The tenants applied to have the fixed term of the tenancy reduced to 6 October 2023, as that is the end date, they say they agreed with the landlord for their tenancy.
The tenants gave evidence that they were unhappy with the premises as they had experienced numerous issues with it that they say the landlord did not address in a reasonable timeframe, or in some cases at all. They also claimed that the landlord’s failure to repair and maintain the property put them at risk and negatively impacted their physical and mental health and wellbeing.
During the property inspection at the end of August 2023, the tenants say that out of desperation they approached the property manager about potentially ending the fixed term tenancy earlier. They claim they were stressed out by continually raising repairs and maintenance issues, that they say were not being addressed, as well as the resulting inconvenience and loss of amenity they were suffering. They requested that they be allowed to give 28 days’ notice to end their tenancy early.
The parties confirmed during the hearing, the property manager informed the tenants that as the tenancy was for a fixed term, it could not be ended by the giving of notice, that both parties had to agree to reduce the fixed term tenancy, that the tenants would remain liable for rent until a new tenant took up the tenancy and they would also be liable for any reasonable costs incurred by the landlord in finding new tenants. She did agree to discuss the tenants request with the property owner.
An email was produced in evidence that confirms on 4 September 2023, the property manager followed up the tenants’ verbal request to reduce the term of their fixed term tenancy and their healthy homes concerns. The owner had agreed to the tenants ending their tenancy earlier, the property manager undertook to start looking for new tenants but reiterated the tenants would remain liable for the rent until new tenants moved into the premises.
A tenant that ends his/her/their fixed term tenancy early is deemed to have abandoned the premises before the end of the lease and is liable to pay rent for any period up to and including the date of the expiry of the fixed term or the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises, whichever is the earlier. See Section 61(3)(b) of the RTA.
Several emails went back and forth between the tenants and property manager from 4 to 7 September 2023 about the breaking of the fixed term tenancy early.
On 7 September 2023, the tenants gave a written proposal to the property manager to move slowly out of the premises from 15 to 22 September 2023, to pay rent until 6 October 2023, to pay a maximum of $350.00 to have the property re-advertised.
On 23 September 2023, the tenants asked to have the fixed term tenancy ended in 4 weeks. They then requested a two-week extension to the agreed move out date, with the new move out date being 6 October 2023.
The tenants took on a new tenancy three weeks before 12 October 2023 and took their time to move their belongings out of the premises slowly over a few weeks. The landlord took possession of the premises on 12 October 2023.
The exit inspection was carried out on 12 October 2023.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There was no unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances or financial duress arguments put to the Tribunal by the tenants. The tenants remained in the premises until 12 October 2023 and did not give vacant possession to the landlord until that date.
The new tenants moved into the premises on 13 October 2023.
In all the circumstances, I do not find it appropriate to reduce the term of the tenancy to 6 October 2023.
The landlord consented to the tenant being able to end the fixed term tenancy on 6 October 2023, but made it clear the tenants remained liable for the rent until 12 October 2023.
I consider that the fixed term tenancy duly ended on 12 October 2023, the day before the new tenants move into the premises. There has been no evidence provided that justifies the fixed term period being reduced to 6 October 2023 when the tenants still had possession of the property up to 12 October 2023. No rent overpayment has been made by the tenants. Should the Tribunal grant a reduction of the break lease administration fees sought by the tenants and reimburse them for any overpayment?
The tenants applied to have the break lease administration and advertising fees reduced by $27.75.
It is reasonable for the tenants to be ordered to pay reasonable compensation for any loss or damage that has resulted from the reduction in the term of their fixed term tenancy.
On 29 August 2023, the landlord emailed the tenants informing them that they would have to pay a break lease fee for advertising and administration costs resulting from the fixed term tenancy being ended early.
On 7 September 2023, the tenants emailed the landlord proposing a number of things, including a suggestion that one of the terms of the agreement to end the tenancy early was that the break lease fees do not exceed $350.00.
The tenants say the landlord agreed to that capped sum and then charged them $373.75.
The tenants directed me to an email dated 8 September 2023, from the landlord, that states “I don’t see an issue with the break lease fees not exceeding $350.00” as proof that the landlord had accepted that part of their proposal.
The property manager argued that break lease fees are generally around that sum, as such she was not expecting the fees to be more than that amount, but she did not agree to not on-charging whatever advertising and administration costs were borne by the owners if they went slightly over $350.00.
The property manager’s evidence shows she was proactive and commenced advertising on 8 September 2023, as soon as she had a confirmed exit date from the tenants. She did what she could to get new tenants in as soon as practicable and the break lease fees charged are fair and reasonable.
I am not satisfied that the property manager agreed to cap the break lease costs at $350.00 in her email of 8 September 2023 and the landlord was under no obligation to accept the tenants proposed cap.
The actual costs incurred by the owners for the break lease fees was $373.75. It is not unreasonable for the full break lease costs incurred by the owners to be passed on to the tenants. I dismiss the tenants claim accordingly. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the inspection report and the tenancy agreement contain false and misleading information about the smoke alarms installed in the rental premises and the landlord put their lives at risk and breached its statutory obligations by not ensuring the rental premises had working smoke alarms before the tenants moved in.
The tenants were under the reasonable belief the smoke alarms were compliant and functioning because: a. Page 5 of the tenancy agreement under the heading “smoke alarm disclosure statement” clearly states: i. There are 2 photoelectric smoke alarms; ii. The smoke alarms are within 3 metres of all bedrooms; iii. The first smoke alarm is in the lounge by bedroom 1; iv. The second smoke alarm is in the dining room by bedroom 2; v. The smoke alarms were last assessed on 14 April 2022; and vi. Both smoke alarms expire on 23 April 2024; and b. The pre-entry inspection report states both some alarms are working.
The tenants gave evidence that the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows:
Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: a. are working at the start of each new tenancy; b. remain in working order during the tenancy; and c. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms.
Tenants must: a. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; b. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and c. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
The tenants stated that because they place great emphasis on protecting their own health and wellbeing, on the day their tenancy started (3 June 2023) they tested the smoke alarms, despite their reasonable belief the smoke alarms were working. They say they were shocked to find neither of the smoke alarms worked.
The tenants confirmed to the Tribunal they immediately contacted the property manager about the faulty and potentially expired smoke alarms and were told to replace the batteries and the tenants would be reimbursed for the cost.
When they went to replace the batteries, they found one smoke alarm had no batteries in it at all and the other one had old batteries. One did not work when the batteries were replaced. The other one kept randomly going off all the time when they installed batteries. They confirmed they tried to trouble shoot the possibilities about why one kept randomly going off, as it was irritating at best and depriving them of sleep and peace at worst. They say they were also concerned that the faulty smoke alarms had expiry dates of 2023 on them, with no expiry day or date. As such they were unsure at what point in 2023 the alarms were due to expire or if they had already expired. In addition, the smoke alarms were not placed about 3 metres out from the door frame, as recommended by FENZ.
The tenants say they immediately informed the property manager of these issues and by 12 June 2023, they had not had a response. They were not prepared to put their lives at risk any longer, so they purchased and installed their own compliant photoelectric smoke alarms.
The tenants also gave evidence that New Zealand Standard 4514 provides a guide on where to place smoke alarms, as does the FENZ website. In addition, the tenants directed me to the Residential Tenancies Regulations that also set out the minimum requirements for smoke alarms.
The tenants stated that they followed FENZ’s recommendation and placed the smoke alarms a minimum of 30 centimetres from each bedroom door. This is not a regulatory requirement, but a recommendation that FENZ states is residential best practice as it gives maximum effect to the smoke alarm.
The regulations state there must be a smoke alarm in every room where someone sleeps, or within 3 meters of each bedroom door. The alarms must be photoelectric, have a battery life of at least eight years, or be hard-wired, installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and meet international standards. Existing smoke alarms do not need to be replaced if they are working and have not passed the expiry date.
The landlord confirmed that it offered to reimburse the tenants for the new smoke alarms and for the new batteries they had purchased but say the tenants never sent the landlord the invoices/receipts.
On 24 August 2023, the tenants received an email from the property manager reminding them that they are “legally obligated to ensure all smoke alarm batteries are replaced if required”, to inform her if the “current smoke alarms are faulty” so a “replacement can be arranged”. The email also goes on to say, “during my recent inspections I have found several properties with no smoke alarms in the correct place” and asks the tenants to “kindly check your smoke alarms and send a photo of the backs of the alarms so I can ensure they have not expired”. This email added insult to their injury.
On 24 August 2023, the tenants received an email from FENZ informing them a compliance inspection had been requested and an email from the property manager confirming she had requested this inspection to ensure the alarms were “up to date and working well”.
The tenants say that the property manager conducted her first property inspection on 28 August 2023, and they raise their concerns about the misleading information in the tenancy agreement, the faulty smoke alarms and that her response to being told of the faulty alarms was not reasonable when the old alarms had not been tested since 14 April 2022 and the old alarms appeared to have expired.
When tenants moved out, they say they put the original smoke alarms back to their original positions and produced photographs to prove this.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA. In addition, the evidence proves the details of the original smoke alarms provided were not accurately recorded in the tenancy agreement and were both false and misleading.
Breaching any of the landlord’s s45 obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
In order to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal has to be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and it would be just to award exemplary damages, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord failed to test the smoke alarms prior to the tenancy commencing and intentionally recorded false and misleading information without checking the information was correct. This information led the tenants to form a false belief the alarms were fully functional and complaint and subjected them to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives; b. the tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to test, trouble shoot and ultimately replace and install new smoke alarms as well as follow the landlord up and remind it of its obligations under the RTA and associated regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and risk to their health and wellbeing; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide fully functioning and compliant smoke alarms to tenants and to record details about these accurately in the tenancy agreement.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of 45(1)(ba) of the RTA.
I also make an order for the landlord to pay a sum in general damages of $100.00 for the use of the tenants smoke alarms for the 18 weeks of the tenancy, the cost of the batteries that should have been provided at the start of the tenancy and the general stress and inconvenience they suffered as a result of not being provided with working smoke alarms at the start of their tenancy. Did the landlord fail to meet its s45(1)(a) and (b) obligations to provide the rental premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
Under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, a landlord must provide the rental premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord also has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach2. However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Breaching either of these s45 obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
In evidence, the tenants stated: a. When they viewed the property, they were informed the old wooden box and rubbish in the subfloor under the house they raised concerns about would be removed before their tenancy started; b. The property inspection report dated 1 June 2023 records that an old wooden box and some broken glass had been left in the carport and a 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. window in the carport had been broken in a prior storm. It also records that the power outlet in the second bedroom is cracked; c. The property manager informed them the wooden box had been there since she took over the management of the property, she would ask the owner to remove it and she would check with the owner if they would look at repairing the broken window in the carport and under the house where the tenants were hoping to store a few items and that because the tenants were not using the second bedroom there was no need to fix the cracked power point; d. The property manager never came back to them about these issues they raised; e. During the break lease negotiations on 7 September 2023, the tenants emailed the property manager again raising their concerns about the rubbish strewn over the subfloor, the wooden box and broken glass that had not been removed and the windows that were all still broken. They reminded the property manager that she had agreed to address these issues when the tenancy started. They also raised their concern about the cracked power outlet that had never worked and that they considered an electrical fire risk; f. On 8 September 2023, the property manager emailed a response that said “No confirmation or deemed necessary to remove any rubbish under the house, repair carport window, mount kitchen cupboard or provide a safe and reliable method to check the water tank levels. Irrelevant to your tenancy. These are cosmetic issues which you saw during your viewing. Happy to water tank levels as they are for your move out”. g. On 14 September 2023, the tenants issued the landlord a 14-day notice requiring it to: i. Repair the broken carport window (tenants have picked up glass off the ground); ii. Address accessibility to open/close second bedroom window; iii. Repair/replace broken outlet and switch plate in second bedroom; iv. Repair broken and expired smoke alarms; v. Remove wooden garbage bin in carport as promised during viewing; vi. Repair the subfloor windows (tenants have picked up most of the broken glass in the yard but there is still glass over the subfloor); vii. Removal of trash in sub floor (this includes food related trash such as food wrapper and dish ware that is likely to attract pests from before current tenancy; viii. Investigate the cause of the mould smell and moisture issues with subsequent replacement/repair if mould is found in bedroom 1, as the tenants had raised this issue with the landlord prior and no investigation had been carried out despite a photograph of the missing under floor insulation, gaps in the bedroom floor boards causing drafts located directly above a damp dirt ground with evidence that deep channels of water had been flowing through the subfloor area at times; h. On 13 September 2023, the property manager responded to the 14-day notice informing the tenants: i. The ability to open and close the window in bedroom 2 would be fixed that day or on a day that suits the tenants; ii. The broken outlook would be completed by the healthy homes assessor today; iii. All Clear would be contacting the tenants to replace the expired and faulty smoke alarms and may have already done so; iv. The following will not be addressed:
The wooden box will not be removed from the carport;
The broken windows in the carport or sub floor as there has always ben missing glass in these windows and the owners have no desire to replace them;
The rubbish and old belongings under the house will not be removed as they had been there before the property manager took over the management of it and there has been no evidence of a pest issue. i. The same day the property manager also informed the tenants “the plug in the bedroom was noted of its damage on my move in report however you told me that’s fine it will only be used as a spare room (which it is) and won’t be used, this is the first I have been told that it does not work”. j. They were shocked that the property manager had made note of a faulty power outlet but had not checked it was working and not a fire hazard and they also confirmed she knew they used the room as an office and needed this power outlet to work; k. The underfloor insulation was repaired on or around 14 September 2023 when the healthy homes inspection was carried out, but the mouldy smelling carpet was never investigated or remedied and the tenants claim their bedroom remained damp and mouldy. They did not produce any evidence of the mould under the carpet but did show some evidence of some mould stains on the bedroom and lounge curtains that the tenants took down as the mould was impacting their allergies; l. On 2 October 2023, the property manager emailed the tenants confirming the second bedroom window repair had been done, the power outlet repaired, the smoke alarms replaced, and all healthy homes requirements had been completed. m. On 4 October 2023, the tenants checked the property and none of the items on the 14-day notice had been remedied except the smoke alarms. The tenants provided photographs of the broken window hinge and power outlet in the second bedroom, the trash under the house, the broken and sharp glass scattered through the yard and the broken windows and door glass in the entrance to the subfloor area.
In response to the tenants claims, the landlord provided email evidence dated 6 June 2023 that shows it addressed the alleged cat urine smell in the carpet promptly after the tenants first moved in and that the tenants confirmed I writing they did not require the window and door glass in the subfloor area to be replaced. This email shows the tenants asked if they could board these panels up so they could store pet carriers, spare tires and gardening supplies under the house.
The landlord also claims that the healthy homes assessors said the underfloor insulation was not damp, only a small portion of the insulation had come loose and that when the draught stopping was carried out in September 2023 there was no evidence that the house was damp or mouldy. I find that the landlord did make reasonable attempts to investigate the tenants mould/dampness claims and was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of a healthy homes assessment specialist.
The landlord has also provided evidence that the rubbish under the house in the subfloor area was old and had been there a long time. Anny food waste that may have once attracted pests was long gone and the presence of the rubbish did not appear to me to pose a health or fire risk. It is hard to see how the presence of this rubbish could result in any justifiable loss of amenity or other claim by the tenants. I do not consider the tenants to have been disadvantaged in any way by the landlord’s refusal to have this rubbish removed.
I accept that the cracked power point in bedroom 2 should have been tested by an electrical specialist to see if it was in working order and safe to use. If it was neither of these things it should have been replaced before the tenancy commenced as soon as reasonably practicable after the tenants brought it to the landlord’s attention. The tenants were left with a faulty power point that they could not use and that was a potential safety issue and fire risk.
I also accept that the broken glass in the carport and around the yard was a safety hazard that was known to the landlord, raised by the tenants and not remedied throughout the tenancy and should have been.
I do not accept that the landlord was under an obligation to repair the broken carport window or the subfloor window and glass door panels when there is evidence the tenants offered to sand these down and board them up.
I accept that the landlord took longer than is reasonable to address the tenants accessibility to open/close second bedroom window and that not being able to use this window resulted in the tenants loss of amenity and created some inconvenience to them;
I find that the smoke alarms should have been tested between tenancies and before this tenancy commenced. They should have also been repaired/replaced as soon as the tenants brought the issue to the landlord’s attention after finding new batteries did not remedy the issues. However, the tenants replaced these themselves before the landlord had reasonable time to get new ones installed.
The tenants claim the wooden garbage bin in carport should have been removed and that it caused them issues with access through the carport. There is evidence to suggest the property manager promised to have this removed during viewing but did not. I accept the tenants suffered loss of amenity of the carport as a result.
In summary, I am satisfied that the evidence proves that the landlord failed to investigate and or remedy a number of repair and maintenance issues raised with it in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and that the tenants suffered loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience as a result.
I do not accept that the rubbish under the house constitutes a failure by the landlord to provide the premises in reasonable state of cleanliness. There is no other evidence that justifies a finding that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean state. As such, I dismiss that claim.
I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally failed 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 and that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate for the following reasons:
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. From the entry inspection report dated 1 June 2023, the issues the tenants raised during their viewing about the power point, smoke alarms and the wooden box very soon after their tenancy commenced were not addressed in a timely manner and so it is reasonable to conclude the landlord intentionally failed 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. Not enough was done to investigate and successfully remedy these issues. In addition, the broken glass around the property was known to the landlord and not addressed and the broken window hinge was not remedied in a reasonable timeframe; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience and loss of amenity as a result of the landlord’s s45(1)(b) breaches. In addition, they had the stress of having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind it of its obligations under the RTA; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience, health and safety risks and loss of amenity they lived with for the duration of their tenancy; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The question then becomes the amount of exemplary damages to order. There are two breaches of obligations under section 45 (the smoke alarm breaches and the repairs and maintenance breaches), but that is still a breach of one section of the RTA, that section 45. I can only make an order to the maximum of $7,200.00 for a breach under section 45(1A), but I can take into account that there are two breaches within that section.
Having done so, I consider an order at one third of the maximum for the breach of s45(1)(b) would be reasonable, in addition to the $1,000.00 awarded for the landlord’s breach of s45(1)(ba). There are no factors which argue for a lesser or higher order in my view. I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,400.00.
The tenants also seek compensation. I consider it is fair to order compensation. The tenants were expected to pay rent for premises which did not meet the required standard. I note that exemplary damages are not compensatory, so it is reasonable to order a sum of money to compensate the tenants for their loss – compensation.
I must also take into consideration that the RTA requires parties to mitigate their loss. The tenants could have come to the Tribunal seeking work orders to address any defects but did not.
When I step back and consider what a fair amount of rent compensation would be, I consider $50.00 per week for the duration of the tenancy is realistic amount, and that is ordered for the 19 weeks duration of the tenancy. I therefore order compensation to be paid of $950.00. Unlawful entry
Section 48 of the RTA contains provisions in relation to the landlord’s right of entry.
The tenants claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on: a. On 29 August 2023 to do a property inspection without the required 48 hours’ notice; and b. On 13 September 2023, a repair man called the tenants and informed them he would be at the house in an hour and a half to do some miniatous. The property manager had not informed the tenants of this work nor given them 24 hours’ notice it was going to be done. c. Sometime between 1 and 12 October 2023 a contractor came to do further maintenance on the property without the required 24 hours’ notice.
The tenants claim that: a. On 21 August 2023, the property manager gave the tenants notice of a property inspection to be undertaken on 24 August 2023. The tenants asked for this to be postponed as one of them had tested positive for COVID-19; b. The property manager agreed to reschedule the inspection and texted the tenants on 28 August 2023 asking if she could carry out the inspection on 29 August 2023; c. The tenants responded the property manager could carry out the inspection on 30 August 2023 (thereby giving them the required 48 hrs notice); d. The property manager confirmed that she could only carry the inspection out on 29 August 2023 as that was the only day she was in Wellsford, and she was not able to give them a time as she had 15 inspections to do that day so she would text them when she was 15 to 20 minutes away; e. When the property manager arrived, the tenants confirmed they were not happy for the inspection to be carried out as they had not been given 48 hours’ notice, they were working for home that day and the inspection was stressful, inconvenient and a breach of their quiet enjoyment and having been given only 20 minutes notice was insufficient. The property manager insisted the tenants allow her access despite their clear intention not to let her enter; f. On 7 September 2023, the tenants emailed the property manager recording their issue with the property manager failing to provide them with 48 hours’ notice of the property inspection she carried out n 29 August 2023 and that there had not been mutual agreement for her to enter the premises that day; g. The property manager emailed the tenants in response on 8 September 2023 saying “please show me confirmation you declined or said no to my entry? As stated in the RTA both the tenant and landlord can agree to the landlord accessing the property”. You “emailed me on 21 August 2023 saying “I’ll be home anytime and day next week”. I did not use the key, I knocked and with your permission came and completed my inspection”. h. On 13 September 2023, a repair man called the tenants and informed them he would be at the house in an hour and a half to do some maintenance. The property manager had not informed the tenants of this work nor given them 24 hours’ notice it was going to be done and they were not living on the property at the time, but still had some of their possessions stored there. They were uncomfortable about the contractor being at the house unsupervised; i. Sometime between 1 and 12 October 2023 another contractor came to the rental premise and installed a draft stop without the landlord providing the tenants with the requisite 24 hours’ notice or notifying them that the tradesperson had been and completed the job. The tenants were robbed during this time and were concerned that the landlord had allowed entry to a contractor without their knowledge. They say they were also concerned that the landlord may be allowing access to others when they were still responsible for the house and grounds and had some of their personal equipment stored at the premises.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the property manager intentionally committed an unlawful act when she insisted on entering the tenants’ home without their free and express consent on 29 August 2023. There is an imbalance of power inherent in a tenant/landlord relationship and the tenants stated that she gave them no choice but to allow her to enter, but they protested the action. I also find that the property manager intentionally committed further unlawful acts when she failed to give the tenants 24 hours’ notice of the two contractors entering the property to carry out maintenance.
Where the landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord knew the tenants had not given consent to enter the premise but did so as it was convenient for her to do the property inspection while she was in Wellsford, and it wasn’t convenient to do it on another day when she could provide the required notice. The landlord also did not inform the tenant it had arranged contractors to enter the premises and carry out maintenance work on 13 September 2023 and in the first two weeks of October 2023; b. the tenants suffered the stress of having to allow the landlord to enter their home when they were trying to work and had only 15 to 20 minutes warning of the property manager’s imminent arrival as so were unable to fully prepare for the intrusion into their quiet enjoyment of the property and also experienced a breach of their privacy and the stress on knowing contractors had been in their home without their consent and/or knowledge; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and breach of quiet enjoyment/privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their right of entry obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Failure to provide healthy homes standards statement and information in the tenancy agreement.
[The tenants] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement provided to and signed by the tenants include: a. The landlord’s insurance information; b. A smoke alarm disclosure statement; c. An incomplete insulation statement; and d. A healthy homes statement of intent.
There are no healthy homes statement sections for ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping in the tenancy agreement. As such, the tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant and/or whether any exemptions apply to the premises.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants gave evidence that during the 28 August 2023, during the first property inspection the tenants raised their concerns abut not having been provided with this information in the tenancy agreement was told “she had 120 days to provide them with this information”.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $300.00 of exemplary damages, because: a. The landlord knew it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise that they may not have taken if they had known the premise did not comply with all of the healthy homes standards, but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenant that the rental premises meet all of the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Breach of HHS
The tenants have claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, but all private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021.
The tenants claim the landlord is in breach of its obligations to ensure the rental premises meet the healthy homes standards and that the premises did not comply as it had faulty smoke alarms, damaged underfloor insulation in the master bedroom and gaps in the floorboards in the master bedroom that was letting in drafts and mouldy damp underlay in the master bedroom.
The tenants say they asked for heathy homes information as there was none to speak of in the tenancy agreement.
The property manager claimed the tenants were provided the healthy homes assessment report, dated 12 May 2023, when they raised concerns about whether the rental premise met the healthy homes standards. The version supplied in evidence shows it was generated on 6 July 2023.
The property manager gave evidence that on 6 September 2023, she arranged for the healthy homes assessment company to come back and undertake a reassessment in response to the tenants ongoing concerns that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards. The assessment was carried out on 15 September 2023 and a new report provided to the tenants. This report states the rental premises passed all the healthy homes assessment standards after a few remedial works had been carried out on the underfloor insulation that had been damaged since the prior assessment had been done and a planter box was removed from the drain area.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the two healthy homes standards reports from The Good Home New Zealand and it remedied any new issues that had arisen since the first report had been written to ensure the home remained compliant.
The tenants claim the first report was incorrect and the landlord should have engaged another independent third party to conduct a new healthy homes assessment after they had raised their concerns about the underfloor insulation, drafts coming through the gaps in the floorboards and dampness/mould in the carpet underlay.
I find that on the balance of probabilities, the landlord held a reasonable belief the rental premise met the healthy homes standards on or around 12 May 2023, when the first report was provided to the landlord by an independent company that specialises in undertaking these assessments and that some time between the date of the first assessment on the assessment on 15 September 2023, a small patch of the underfloor insulation failed in the master bedroom and was repaired as soon as it was brought to the landlord’s attention, thereby remedying the draft coming up between the floor boards. The healthy homes assessor missed the elevated planter box over the drain that was covering a drain and the landlord remedied that error as soon as the issue was found. There was also an issue with a window being stuck closed that was identified by the assessor and this was also remedied.
The second assessment and report dated 15 September 2023 shows the premises were still compliant with the healthy homes’ standards after some minor repairs.
I am not satisfied that the tenants proved on the balance of probabilities the landlord failed to meet its heathy homes obligations and dismiss the tenants claim accordingly. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims and therefore its claim for reimburse of the filing fee is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742909 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742909 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions