How much money was awarded in case 4792683?

Compensation: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792683?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792683?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10359705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4792683?

Compensation: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792683?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792683?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10359705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4792683 — Healthy homes

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4792683 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4792683 — net $3,720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – Draught & Mould issues	$1,700.00	Compensation – Draught & Mould issues
Exemplary damages – Failure to comply with HHS	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages – Failure to comply with HHS
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,720.44

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

Blackham & Co Real Estate Limited - As Agent For Rian Haynes must pay [The tenant/s] $3,720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation – Draught & Mould issues $1,700.00 Exemplary damages – Failure to comply with HHS$2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,720.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$3,720.44

The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This tenancy started in March 2023 and was for a fixed term to 29 March 2024. The due date for compliance with Healthy Homes Standards was 30 July 2023. The tenancy ended early, by agreement, in September 2023.

The tenant has now made this application alleging various breaches of the landlord’s obligations and claiming compensation and exemplary damages of $26,936.50, including a full rent refund for the duration of the tenancy. General Principles

The Tribunal’s role was summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8], as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.”

An applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil standard; on the balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal may make orders for compensation and for exemplary damages. See s78 RTA. Compensation is awarded for actual losses arising from a proven breach of the other party’s obligations. Compensation may also be awarded for less tangible effects of established breaches such as loss of enjoyment or amenity of the tenancy. See Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225 for the approach to quantifying compensation for “general damages”.

Exemplary damages may be awarded, at the Tribunal’s discretion, where a party establishes that the other has intentionally committed an “unlawful act” as defined by the RTA. See s109 and schedule 1A RTA. Exemplary damages are intended to punish or deter. Analysis

The tenant put forward comprehensive written submissions that had been collated with assistance from a Property Manager from out of [Town]. It was not clear whether that person had visited the property, and they did not give evidence at the hearing.

The evidence and claims presented at the hearing were more general in nature and lacked the specificity required to support the written submission in many respects.

The tenant’s allegations amount to claims for breaches of Healthy Homes Standards, contamination of the premises, failure to provide reasonably clean premises, failure to lodge the bond and failure to provide the correct information at the start and during the tenancy. Cleanliness – Start of the Tenancy

The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See s45 RTA.

The landlord accepted that some additional cleaning was required and paid one invoice rendered by the tenant for cleaning. The tenant then sought a further $720.00 which the landlord declined to pay.

The tenant did not establish this aspect of her claim. The photographs provided by the parties, do not satisfy me that a further $720.00 worth of cleaning was required at the start of the tenancy. Nor did the tenant establish the actual time/cost incurred.

This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Tenancy Agreement & Healthy Homes Statement

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant. She also claims that the landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes Statement.

A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.

Breaching any of these 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 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Both the signed tenancy agreement and Healthy Homes Statement were provided in evidence to the Tribunal. There is no record of the tenant requesting further copies of either document during the tenancy.

These aspects of the claim are dismissed. Lodging the Bond

The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not provide clear evidence of when she paid the bond and when, she says, it should have been lodged. Accepting that it was paid on or around 6 April, the bond should have been paid to the bond centre in or around the second week of May. It was paid in June 2023.

The landlord accepted that the bond was not lodged within 23 working days of receipt but says that the issue was identified during a routine bond audit within the landlord’s office. The landlord said that the tenant was advised and the situation immediately rectified.

I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in relation to the bond. However, the act was not intentional, and I accept the landlord’s evidence that it identified and rectified the issue.

This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement; by 30 July 2023.

The tenant claims that the premises did not comply with any of the HHS. An assessment report confirms that the premises only complied with the heating standard at the start of the tenancy. The Healthy Homes statement (in the tenancy agreement) also records the areas of non-compliance and identifies the compliance date.

The landlord provided evidence of work orders it issued and work completed before the compliance date. It claimed an exemption for mechanical ventilation in the kitchen. There was an extractor fan, but it did not vent outside. The landlord says this was not possible because of the construction of the dwelling and provided evidence from an electrician in support of its position.

Not all issues were resolved by the compliance date. The landlord said that was an oversight because it did not follow up on work orders issues. Rather it assumed that the work had been done (even though it did not receive confirmation or invoices from the tradespeople).

I find that the premises did not comply with the draught stopping standard at the compliance date. The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The landlord had issued a work order for the work, but it was not done, and the landlord did not follow up.

The tenant gave evidence of mould and dampness issues arising from the draughts. She provided photographs of mouldy items. She described the condition of the property as uninhabitable. I have difficulty reconciling her current evidence with her request to assign the tenancy to her son (when she was seeking early termination of the fixed term). However, I accept that there was a loss of amenity in living in the non-compliant property. I award compensation of $1,700.00 as a global sum for mould damaged items and loss of amenity for the short duration of the failure to comply (31 July 2023 until the tenancy ended in September 2023).

I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The landlord’s position appears to be that any non-compliance was not deliberate or intentional because it had asked for the work to be done. It is for the landlord to ensure compliance with the HHS, and to have the appropriate systems and checks in place to make sure the work is done. It is not enough that the landlord issued a work request to a contractor.

In relation to Bond lodgement, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02).

Applying that rationale to this case, I find that the landlord’s breach was intentional and that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages. There is a public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their obligations under HHS. I award exemplary damages of $2,000.

For completeness, I record that I find that the premises did comply with the HHS heating standard. I decline the tenant’s request for reimbursement of firewood costs. Her evidence was confusing and not completely forthcoming about the number and types of fires at the property. Contamination

[The tenant/s] claims landlord provided premises that were contaminated and seeks exemplary damages.

Where premises have been tested and found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other prescribed contaminant, the landlord cannot provide the premises to a tenant until they have been decontaminated. Where the premises have already been provided, the landlord may only continue to provide them if the premises are being decontaminated. See sections 45(1AA) and (1AAB) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 45(1AB) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant’s claim is misconceived. It did not relate to Methamphetamine or any prescribed contaminant. The claim is dismissed.

The tenant also raised issues with gardening done at the end of the tenancy and asked the tribunal to revisit an agreement reached by the parties regarding release and apportionment of the bond. There is no legal or factual basis for me to do so. That aspect of the claim is also dismissed.

As the tenant was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee and granted her request for suppression of her details.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4792683 — net $3,720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – Draught & Mould issues	$1,700.00	Compensation – Draught & Mould issues
Exemplary damages – Failure to comply with HHS	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages – Failure to comply with HHS
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,720.44