What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4788360 about?

The tribunal order states: Progressive Realty Limited and Guy & Denise Abbott must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4788360?

Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788360?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10214574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4788360 about?

The tribunal order states: Progressive Realty Limited and Guy & Denise Abbott must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4788360?

Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788360?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10214574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4788360 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4788360 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation Garden Work and Light Bulbs	$400.00		Compensation Garden Work and Light Bulbs
Compensation Heating		$600.00	Compensation Heating
Total award	$400.00	$600.00
Net award		$200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$200.00

Order

Progressive Realty Limited and Guy & Denise Abbott must pay [The tenant/s] $200.00 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 21 January 2024.
The tenants claim the bond and compensation for being without a means of heating in the living area of the premises for eight weeks.
The landlords claim the cost of garden work and replacing lightbulbs. Tenants’ Heating Claim
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest.
This tenancy came with a statement that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards. There was a wood burner in the living area with adequate heating capacity.
On 11 April 2023 [Council] notified the tenants that the wood burner was not compliant and that they must stop using it. It had ceased to be compliant in December 2022.
The tenants stopped using the wood burner and they did not have a means of heating the living area until a heat pump was installed on 5 July. That was a period of eight weeks.
The landlords explained that they have a system to alert them when wood burners become non-compliant and need to be replaced but it failed on this occasion.
I accept that the landlords acted reasonably to install a heat pump and that delays in doing so were beyond their control.
That does not assist the landlords because the premises should not have been rented to the tenants with a non-compliant wood burner as the only means to heat the living area. Once the tenants were told not to use it, the tenants were left without a means of heating in the living area and there was a failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards that affected the tenants.
For exemplary damages to be awarded the breach must be intentional. I accept, with some reservation, that it was not intentional in this case. The requirements for clean heating in [City] are well known and the landlords should have ensured that the heating was compliant. But I accept that there was an unintended failure in this case.
The tenants are entitled to compensation. The tenants were without the means to heat the living area during some of the colder months of the year and that would have caused some discomfort. The landlords offered them an electric heater which they declined. They said that it would have been very difficult to heat such a large space with electric heaters and I accept that. There would have been a cost involved as well. The tenants had already bought firewood.
I have calculated compensation based on $75 per week for the inconvenience and discomfort. Landlords’ Claim
I accept that there were some weeds in the garden that needed to be dealt with at the end of the tenancy. I accept that the tenants did some weeding, but I do not accept that they did not need to deal with the weeds in the gravelled areas. They said that they did not want to use a weed spray for health reasons. I note that there are alternatives to toxic sprays.
I also accept that lightbulbs needed to be replaced at the end of the tenancy and that the tenants were responsible for them. I accept the light bulbs in the premises were all working at the start of the tenancy. The tenants did not inform the landlords otherwise and the ingoing report states that they were working. The living room lights must have been turned off at the time that the photographs were taken because the tenants said that at least some of them were working.
But I do not accept that the amount claimed is reasonable. The weeds needed spraying. I am not satisfied that the tenants were responsible for pulling weeds out. They had done a reasonable job in that respect.
I have therefore reduced the cost to $400. Bond
Given the result, the bond will be paid to the tenants in full. Filing Fee
The parties have had mixed success and so I make no award for filing fees. Suppression
The tenants seek name suppression. They have had substantial success and so I have granted then suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4788360 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation Garden Work and Light Bulbs	$400.00		Compensation Garden Work and Light Bulbs
Compensation Heating		$600.00	Compensation Heating
Total award	$400.00	$600.00
Net award		$200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$200.00

Order

Progressive Realty Limited and Guy & Denise Abbott must pay [The tenant/s] $200.00 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 21 January 2024.
The tenants claim the bond and compensation for being without a means of heating in the living area of the premises for eight weeks.
The landlords claim the cost of garden work and replacing lightbulbs. Tenants’ Heating Claim
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest.
This tenancy came with a statement that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards. There was a wood burner in the living area with adequate heating capacity.
On 11 April 2023 [Council] notified the tenants that the wood burner was not compliant and that they must stop using it. It had ceased to be compliant in December 2022.
The tenants stopped using the wood burner and they did not have a means of heating the living area until a heat pump was installed on 5 July. That was a period of eight weeks.
The landlords explained that they have a system to alert them when wood burners become non-compliant and need to be replaced but it failed on this occasion.
I accept that the landlords acted reasonably to install a heat pump and that delays in doing so were beyond their control.
That does not assist the landlords because the premises should not have been rented to the tenants with a non-compliant wood burner as the only means to heat the living area. Once the tenants were told not to use it, the tenants were left without a means of heating in the living area and there was a failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards that affected the tenants.
For exemplary damages to be awarded the breach must be intentional. I accept, with some reservation, that it was not intentional in this case. The requirements for clean heating in [City] are well known and the landlords should have ensured that the heating was compliant. But I accept that there was an unintended failure in this case.
The tenants are entitled to compensation. The tenants were without the means to heat the living area during some of the colder months of the year and that would have caused some discomfort. The landlords offered them an electric heater which they declined. They said that it would have been very difficult to heat such a large space with electric heaters and I accept that. There would have been a cost involved as well. The tenants had already bought firewood.
I have calculated compensation based on $75 per week for the inconvenience and discomfort. Landlords’ Claim
I accept that there were some weeds in the garden that needed to be dealt with at the end of the tenancy. I accept that the tenants did some weeding, but I do not accept that they did not need to deal with the weeds in the gravelled areas. They said that they did not want to use a weed spray for health reasons. I note that there are alternatives to toxic sprays.
I also accept that lightbulbs needed to be replaced at the end of the tenancy and that the tenants were responsible for them. I accept the light bulbs in the premises were all working at the start of the tenancy. The tenants did not inform the landlords otherwise and the ingoing report states that they were working. The living room lights must have been turned off at the time that the photographs were taken because the tenants said that at least some of them were working.
But I do not accept that the amount claimed is reasonable. The weeds needed spraying. I am not satisfied that the tenants were responsible for pulling weeds out. They had done a reasonable job in that respect.
I have therefore reduced the cost to $400. Bond
Given the result, the bond will be paid to the tenants in full. Filing Fee
The parties have had mixed success and so I make no award for filing fees. Suppression
The tenants seek name suppression. They have had substantial success and so I have granted then suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788360 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788360 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions