What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4810858 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4810858?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Power Use: $1,911.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.85 awarded to landlord; Rent / Water Payments In Credit: $561.57 awarded to tenant; Wi-Fi Use: $384.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4810858?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4810858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10600863-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4810858 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4810858?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Power Use: $1,911.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.85 awarded to landlord; Rent / Water Payments In Credit: $561.57 awarded to tenant; Wi-Fi Use: $384.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4810858?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4810858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10600863-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4810858 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4810858 — net $92.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power use	$1,911.71		Power use
Wi-fi use	$384.60		Wi-fi use
Lock/key replacement	$172.85		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Rent / water payments in credit		$561.57	Rent / water payments in credit
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes		$2,000.00	Failure to meet healthy homes
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$2,489.60	$2,582.01
Net award		$92.41
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$92.41

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4810858 — net $92.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power use	$1,911.71		Power use
Wi-fi use	$384.60		Wi-fi use
Lock/key replacement	$172.85		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Rent / water payments in credit		$561.57	Rent / water payments in credit
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes		$2,000.00	Failure to meet healthy homes
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$2,489.60	$2,582.01
Net award		$92.41
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$92.41

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The previous orders set out the background to the applications.
After the end of the tenancy [The landlord/s] amended her application to include claims for power and wi-fi used during the tenancy, and change of locks.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 4 July 2024. [The landlord/s] attended the hearing in person. In the previous order I gave permission for Mr Tangimetua to attend the hearing by phone. I made multiple attempts to call Mr Tangimetua on the morning of the hearing. There was no answer. The hearing proceeded in Mr Tangimetua’s absence. 1 Landlord application Power and wi-fi
Tenants must pay for outgoings that they consume during the tenancy, including water, power, and wi-fi 2 .
[The landlord/s] provided a detailed calculation, with supporting invoices, showing the rent payments, and the water, wi-fi, and power consumed during the tenancy. Mr Tangimetua paid $20 per week in addition to the rent towards outgoings. At the end of the tenancy, there are no rent arrears or water rates arrears and Mr Tangimetua had a credit of $561.57.
The cost of wi-fi is proven.
The circumstances around the power use claim are more complex. [The landlord/s] explained that she insists on keeping the power account in her name. This was made clear to Mr Tangimetua.
In August 2023, Mr Tangimetua changed the power to an account in his wife’s name. This was done without [The landlord/s] knowledge or consent.
When [The landlord/s] found out about this, she asked her electricity supplier ([electricity company]) to change the account back to her name. [The landlord/s] made this request in December 2023. [Electricity company] changed the account back and issued invoices for electricity use backdated to August. The total amount invoiced was $2,977.26.
[The landlord/s] disputed this charge. After a long negotiation, [Electricity company] agreed to discount the invoiced amount by 40%.
It is difficult to understand why [Electricity company] backdated the charges to August 2023. Presumably Mr Tangimetua would have also been paying his own electricity provider for electricity use over that period.
However, I accept that: 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 39 RTA a. To the extent that Mr Tangimetua has been charged twice for electricity use, that is a consequence of his decision to put the account in his own name contrary to [The landlord/s] specific request. b. [The landlord/s] made all reasonable efforts to get [Electricity company] to waive the bill. They did not, but they did give a substantial discount.
Tenants are liable to pay for metered consumption of power.
The claim is proven. Change of locks
Tenants must return the keys at the end of the tenancy.
In the order dated 22 April 2024 I noted that Mr Tangimetua agreed to drop off the keys on the deck of the property.
[The landlord/s] said that Mr Tangimetua failed to do this.
The cost of change of locks is proven. Radiation
On 4 February 2024 [The landlord/s] was at the premises to allow entry for contractors who were carrying out a methamphetamine test. This is discussed in more detail below in the context of the tenant’s application.
[The landlord/s] said that on a previous occasion when she was at the property she felt unwell and was concerned that there may have been radiation present.
On 4 February, [The landlord/s] had a Geiger counter with her. Using the Geiger counter, she discovered that there was radiation emanating from the boot of the tenant’s vehicle.
[The landlord/s] issued a breach notice in respect of this issue.
The tenancy has since ended. At the hearing [The landlord/s] stated that she wanted to pursue a compensation claim in respect of this issue.
It is not obvious that having a vehicle on the tenanted premises that is emitting radiation constitutes a breach of a tenant’s legal duties under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Putting that difficulty to one side, the larger problem for [The landlord/s] is that she cannot prove any compensable loss. [The landlord/s] said that exposure to radiation at any level is potentially dangerous. I accept that broad principle, but [The landlord/s] had no evidence to indicate that she suffered harm as a result of exposure in this instance.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Tenant application Introduction
As noted above, Mr Tangimetua did not participate in the 4 July hearing. I have addressed the issues as they are set out in his written application. “Landlord sending inappropriate text messages. Landlord sending 14 day breach notices on false accords”
Mr Tangimetua did not provide any evidence of inappropriate text messages.
[The landlord/s] sent breach notices in respect of amounts (allegedly) outstanding for power and water, and in respect of the radiation issue discussed above.
I accept that when [The landlord/s] issued the notices she genuinely believed that the tenant was in breach of his obligations as a tenant.
The Tribunal would only award exemplary damages against a landlord if the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord issued breach notices knowing that they were without basis, solely for the purpose of harassing the tenant.
That is not the case in this instance. “Has done house inspections without any notice. Turns up early for a house inspection and just walks into the house”
The written application did not detail any specific incidents of [The landlord/s] entering the premises without notice.
[The landlord/s] denied that she ever entered the premises without notice.
Mr Tangimetua has the burden of proof.
The claim is not proven. “Has given notice to do a meth test she turns up and starts running radiation test on my vehicle”
[The landlord/s] did not dispute that she was at the premises on 4 February 2024 and when she was there, she held a Geiger counter to the boot of Mr Tangimetua’s vehicle and took a reading.
[The landlord/s] gave notice that a contractor was going to enter the premises on 4 February for the purpose of carrying out a methamphetamine test. [The landlord/s] accompanied the contractor because she was not sure whether Mr Tangimetua was going to be there, and she needed to let the contractor into the house.
In fact Mr Tangimetua was present on that day. [The landlord/s] said that she remained outside when the tester went in. She did not walk around the house or section. She went as far as the driveway where the car was parked. She held the Geiger counter to the boot of the vehicle.
Landlords may not enter the premises unless they have the tenant’s consent, or unless they are there to carry out an inspection or repairs and they have given notice of the intended entry 3 . If a landlord enters the premises unlawfully, they can incur a penalty of up to $1,500.00.
However, that restriction only applies to the dwelling. Landlords do not have to have consent or give notice to walk up the driveway.
There is no evidence that [The landlord/s] ‘crossed the threshold’ on 4 February. She did not unlawfully enter the premises.
Landlords must also not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
I accept the argument that it would be inappropriate for a landlord to come on to the property under a false pretence and to do something else while they are there. On 4 February, [The landlord/s] was there to let the contractor into the house if it was necessary. She was not there to do a covert inspection.
However, [The landlord/s] was not obliged to close her eyes. If she had seen (for example) that there was an excessive amount of rubbish outside, or damage, or if the tenant had pets in contravention of the tenancy agreement it would be perfectly reasonable and lawful for her to issue a breach notice immediately afterwards.
My finding is that the Geiger counter test is analogous to this, and that therefore it was not an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace comfort and privacy. The Geiger counter simply allowed [The landlord/s] to ‘see’ something that was present but not perceptible by human senses. She did not access any areas where the tenant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. She did not move or handle the tenant’s property.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. “would/will not get a heating source for the house”
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards 4 . The healthy homes standards require that premises have a fixed means of heating in the main living area in the house. 3 Section 48 RTA
Failure to meet this duty is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.
There is no fixed means of heating in this property.
[The landlord/s] said that: a. She lived in the property for a period of time before Mr Tangimetua and she has had other tenants. The premises are warm and dry and she thought that it was unnecessary to have a heat pump or wood burner. b. She looked into the cost of getting a heat pump and she communicated with Mr Tangimetua about this. Mr Tangimetua said that he would prefer a wood burner. She then investigated the cost of a wood burner, and discovered that it would be very expensive to install.
The healthy homes obligations are mandatory. The premises did not meet the healthy homes standard in respect of heating. It is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 5 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. [The landlord/s] had a positive duty to ensure that the premises were healthy homes compliant. b. The cost of compliance is not a defence. c. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords provide premises that meet the healthy homes standards. d. The only aspect of non-compliance with the healthy homes standards was heating.
The usual approach of the Tribunal to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors at play 6 .
Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $2,000.00. 4 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 5 Section 109 RTA 6 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 “takes photos of my personal business items, clothing, and inside my vehicles during house inspections”
Landlords may take photographs during inspections for the purpose of documenting the condition of the premises. However, landlords must be careful to 7 : a. Not take an excessive or unreasonable number of photographs. b. Avoid, where possible, taking photographs of the tenant’s personal property. c. Use the photographs only for the purpose of documenting the condition of the property or evidencing any breaches.
[The landlord/s] said that she took photographs during her inspections. She said that it was impossible to avoid including some of the tenant’s belongings in the photographs, but the purpose of the photographs was to record the condition of the premises, not the tenant’s belongings.
The photographs provided in evidence are consistent with [The landlord/s] submission.
The evidence provided to me does not show that [The landlord/s] interfered with Mr Tangimetua’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy by taking excessive or inappropriate photographs.
This part of the claim is dismissed. “maintenance was poor house was shocking lawns nearly waist high. I have video proof on how poor the property was before I took tenancy”
Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition 8 , and must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 9 .
At the Case Conference hearing in April, Mr Tangimetua verbally raised numerous maintenance issues that were not specified in his written application. In my order dated 22 April 2024 I stated that if Mr Tangimetua wanted to amend his application to include these issues he would need to do so in writing, detailing the maintenance issues he wanted to raise.
Mr Tangimetua did not do this.
Mr Tangimetua did not provide the ‘video proof’ that he refers to in his application. 7 Douglas v Moving Realty Ltd [2018] NZTT Whangarei 4137005 4152287, Trevor Hurley Real Estate Ltd v Campen [2014] NZTT Timaru 14/0204/TU 8 Section 45(1)(a) RTA 9 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
There are no proven breaches of the landlord’s maintenance obligation.
[The landlord/s] acknowledged that the lawns were quite long when the tenancy began, although she denied that they were “waist high”.
[The landlord/s] said that: a. She was living in the house before Mr Tangimetua’s tenancy. b. The property has a steep section. c. She was attempting to maintain the section with an electric lawnmower. d. The tenancy began in June 2023. e. It was very difficult and dangerous for her to mow the lawns when the section was wet and slippery. f. She discussed this with Mr Tangimetua at the time. Mr Tangimetua was keen to move in, and said that he was happy to deal with the lawns.
I accept that [The landlord/s] and Mr Tangimetua had a sensible and mutually beneficial agreement at that time. In the circumstances it would be unjust to penalise [The landlord/s].
This part of the tenant’s application is dismissed. . Filing fee, name suppression, outcome
Both parties have been successful or partially successful in their applications and I will award both parties the filing fee of $20.44 10 .
[The landlord/s] sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the basis that [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded in the proceedings 11 .
Mr Tangimetua also sought name suppression. Mr Tangimetua was not wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party, whether they were successful or not, “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 12 . Usually a party must identify some safety concern or other particular consideration to obtain name suppression on this discretionary basis. Mr Tangimetua did not raise any particular issues. Name suppression is not granted.
The net outcome is that [The landlord/s] is to pay Mr Tangimetua $92.41. 10 Section 102(4) RTA 11 Section 95A(1) RTA 12 Section 95A(4) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 4810858 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4810858 — Healthy homes

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