What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4763877 about?

The tribunal order states: Deborah Jayne Ballantiine and Eion Quentin James Clarkson must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4763877?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $440.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4763877?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4763877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10188792-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4763877 about?

The tribunal order states: Deborah Jayne Ballantiine and Eion Quentin James Clarkson must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4763877?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $440.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4763877?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4763877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10188792-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 21 Mount Pleasant Road, Mount Eden, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4763877 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4763877 — net $120.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$60.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet - repair/replacement	$500.00		Repairs: Carpet - repair/replacement
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes standards		$440.00	Healthy Homes standards
Total award	$560.00	$440.00
Net award	$120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$120.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy began on 6 February 2023 and ended on 17 September 2023.

The landlord raised the issue of whether there is jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord says that he never intended for it to be a tenancy. He considered the tenants to be borders in their family home. There was no formal tenancy agreement and instead the terms of the tenancy are recorded in an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 19 January 2023.

I have reached the conclusion that there is jurisdiction because of factors such as that the landlord advertised for tenants on Facebook, the premises were self- contained and there were no shared facilities with the landlord, the parties did not share meals and the premises were provided for consideration of rent. As this was not a boarding house as defined in the Act, I do not consider the tenants to be boarders. They were also not flatmates.

As the Tribunal has jurisdiction, I now turn to the applications filed by the parties.

The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards.

The landlord applied for compensation for cleaning and damage to the carpet. Tenant’s application

The tenant’s application concerns breaches of the Healthy Homes standards. The main issues related to heating and ventilation in the kitchen.

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”).

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals starting or renewing between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022 must comply within 90 days of the new or renewed start date; and b. All private rentals starting or renewing between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 must comply within 120 days of the new or renewed start date.

The compliance date for this tenancy is 6 June 2023 being 120 days after the day the tenancy began.

The Healthy Homes standards concern heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. The standards particularly relevant for this tenancy are heating and ventilation.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The kitchen in these premises did not have a rangehood and the heating consisted of small portable electric heaters.

The landlord obtained a Healthy Homes assessment following an inspection on 5 July 2023. The premises were non-compliant in relation to heating and ventilation. To address these issues the landlord arranged for the installation of a heat pump and a rangehood. These were installed on 23 August 2023.

This meant that the premises were non-compliant for 11 weeks from the date of compliance until the date of installation of the heat pump and rangehood.

Breaching any of these 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.

The landlord did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards in relation to ventilation and heating. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant complained that the premises were cold during winter and the premises were damp and smelt of mould. There was some evidence of mould in the photographs produced by the landlord from the end of the tenancy.

The Healthy Homes standards were introduced to provide a minimum standard and to ensure that tenants lived in warm, healthy and ventilated homes. It is in the public interest for landlords to ensure that they comply with the Healthy Homes standards.

Given the evidence I consider it reasonable to award exemplary damages of $440.00. This amount is calculated by awarding $40.00 for each of the 11 weeks that the premises was non-compliant. Landlord’s application

The landlord produced photographs from after the tenants had vacated the premises. The photographs show that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition as required by section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant thought that there was an obligation on the landlord to allow the tenants to return to carry out any cleaning that was missed. While this sometimes happen there is no requirement for the landlord to do so. The tenant must comply with the responsibilities as set out in the Act.

The landlord employed a cleaner to carry out some of the cleaning. He paid $60.00 for the cleaning and that amount is awarded.

The landlord produced photographs showing damage to the carpet in one of the rooms. It is a large brown mark in the middle of the room.

The tenant acknowledged that the mark was there at the end of the tenancy but had no idea what caused it.

The landlord also produced a photograph of the area from before the tenancy began and there is no damage to the carpet. I accept that the damage was caused during the tenancy.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Carelessness is not defined in the RTA, but its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. It can also be defined as heedless or thoughtless, and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen.

The landlord claims the insurance excess of $1,250.00. The landlord has produced a quote for replacement of the flooring in the premises including both bedrooms, the kitchen, lounge, and bathroom. That quote is for new vinyl flooring and amounts to $9,175.08.

The tenant is not liable for the cost to replace all the flooring in the premises. The landlord has not repaired or replaced the carpet and may choose to repair the damaged area or replace it with new carpet or vinyl. I have assessed that the tenant should be responsible for a contribution toward either the repair or replacement. I have awarded $500.00 for that purpose which is less than the insurance excess claimed by the landlord.

As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name as he has applied for this.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4763877 — net $120.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$60.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet - repair/replacement	$500.00		Repairs: Carpet - repair/replacement
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes standards		$440.00	Healthy Homes standards
Total award	$560.00	$440.00
Net award	$120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$120.00