What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4806520 about?

The tribunal order states: Mikayla Hudson must pay [The tenant/s] $2,310.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4806520?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,440.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4806520?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4806520?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10164166-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4806520 about?

The tribunal order states: Mikayla Hudson must pay [The tenant/s] $2,310.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4806520?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,440.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4806520?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4806520?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10164166-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4806520 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4806520 — net $2,310.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Tenancy Agreement	$150.00	Tenancy Agreement
Exemplary damages: Insulation	$720.00	for failing to insulate a property is $7,200.00. The landlord is ordered to pay $720.00 in exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages: Smoke Alarm	$1,440.00	or failing to provide smoke alarms is $7,200.00. The landlord is ordered to pay $1,440.00 in exemplary damages.
Net award	$2,310.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,310.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 April 2024.

The tenancy relates to premises at [Town] (“the premises”). The premises consist of a single level 3-bedroom house in the urban part of [Town].

The tenancy commenced on 27 September 2023 and is current as of the date of the hearing. General Law

The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine). Tenant Claims Tenancy Agreement.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing.

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.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Prior to the commencement of the tenancy, it appears that both the landlord and tenant were friends. They discussed what they anticipated would initially only be a short-term tenancy. The tenancy remains in place some 6 months later. No written tenancy agreement exists as of the date of the hearing.

In the circumstances as outlined, I consider that the landlord has acted unlawfully. Insulation.

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (“the Regulations”).

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The landlord accepts that there is no underfloor insulation. The landlord says that insulation has been ordered and that they are waiting for it to arrive.

The tenant says that there is some insulation in the ceiling but was unable to say whether it complied with the Regulations. The burden of proving the claim in relation to the ceiling insulation is on the tenant. I am not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the ceiling insulation does not comply and the claim relating to the ceiling insulation is dismissed.

I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act with regards to the underfloor insulation.

The tenant claims relating to draft were not supported by any evidence and as a result, the burden of proof being on the tenant are dismissed. Smoke Alarm.

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

The tenant says that there were no smoke alarms at the premises at the start of the tenancy. Smoke alarms were installed by the landlord after the filing of this application with Tenancy Services.

The landlord says that she did not know that there were no alarms at the premises.

I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Failure to maintain.

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

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 tenant says that the hot water at the premises did not provide a sufficient flow of hot water. This became particularly noticeable around 25 December 2023.

The tenant told the landlord of the issue at the time.

The landlord says that she went to the premises to try to repair the problem. Work was carried out and she received correspondence from the tenant confirming that the hot water was now working.

The landlord says that she only became that this was an ongoing issue when the tenant filed this application with Tenancy Services. A plumber was then called by the landlord and the issue was resolved.

A tenant must tell the landlord of any repairs which need to be completed. In this case the problem was brought to the landlord’s attention. The landlord thought that repairs had been carried out successfully. The tenant did not bring the matter to the landlord attention at any later date and accordingly the application by the tenant is dismissed. Exemplary Damages

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.

Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

The landlord in this matter is an inexperienced landlord. This is the only property controlled by them. The landlord used to live at the premises. Inexperience and lack of knowledge are not an excuse for failing to comply with landlord obligations under the RTA. Widespread advertising took place with regards to the changes relating to insulation and the need for smoke alarms when those requirements first came into operation. A residential tenancy is a business with obligations on the landlord.

The effect of the unlawful act has ranged from inconvenience to the tenant in relation to insulation, through to potential issues of safety with regards to smoke alarms. The RTA requirements are designed to protect tenants who are often the more vulnerable party in a landlord–tenant relationship.

I consider it just to make an award, particularly given the number of proven breaches by the landlord.

I have taken into account the inexperience of the landlord in setting what I consider to be the appropriate award of exemplary damages. The landlord has no previous orders against her by the Tribunal.

The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to provide a tenancy agreement is $750.00. The landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $150.00.

The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to insulate a property is $7,200.00. The landlord is ordered to pay $720.00 in exemplary damages.

The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to provide smoke alarms is $7,200.00. The landlord is ordered to pay $1,440.00 in exemplary damages.

I have taken into account the global level of the orders against the landlord. It is hoped that the award will act as a deterrent to protect the public interest.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4806520 — net $2,310.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Tenancy Agreement	$150.00	Tenancy Agreement
Exemplary damages: Insulation	$720.00	for failing to insulate a property is $7,200.00. The landlord is ordered to pay $720.00 in exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages: Smoke Alarm	$1,440.00	or failing to provide smoke alarms is $7,200.00. The landlord is ordered to pay $1,440.00 in exemplary damages.
Net award	$2,310.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,310.00