What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4810958 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 4810958?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4810958?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4810958?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10419294-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4810958 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 4810958?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4810958?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4810958?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10419294-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4810958 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4810958 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards	$3,000.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	48. I will award exemplary damages of $3,000.00.
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Order

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

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 20 April 2024 sets out the background to this application.
The second hearing took place on 31 May 2024. Both parties participated in the hearing by phone, with the consent of the Tribunal. Healthy homes
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards 1 .
The healthy homes standards impose obligations on the landlords in respect of insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, heating, and drainage.
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 17 August 2023.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to comply with the healthy homes standards 2 . The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 for this unlawful act. Heating
The healthy homes standards require that premises must have a fixed means of heating in the largest living area in the house.
The means of heating: a. Cannot be an open fire or an unflued combustion heater. b. Can be an electric heater, but there are some restrictions on this. c. Must be capable of meeting the minimum heating capacity of the room (there is a formula for calculating this).
There was no fixed means of heating in these premises as at the compliance date.
Mr Christian submitted that he offered to install electric heaters but said that [The tenant/s] refused because the cost of running them. [The tenant/s] denied this.
Mr Christian submitted that there are text messages proving his offer of electric heaters, but I was not provided with evidence of those messages.
Whether or not Mr Christian did offer electric heaters during the tenancy, the burden was on him as landlord to ensure that the house was compliant by no later than 17 August 2023. He had the right to comply by means of installing electric heaters, provided that the relevant criteria were met. Mr Christian in fact ended up installing compliant electric panel heaters in May 2024 – unfortunately well past the 17 August 2023 deadline.
The property did not comply with the healthy homes standard in respect of heating. Kitchen sink drain 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 45(1A) RTA
[The tenant/s] submitted that the kitchen sink drain blocked in November 2023.
The drain that [The tenant/s] is referring to is a gully trap that two grey water pipes discharge into – one from the kitchen and one from the washing machine.
She informed Mr Christian. Mr Christian put an extension on the kitchen waste pipe so that it went beyond the gully trap onto another part of the property, and discharged onto the ground.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she has not used the kitchen sink since November 2023.
Mr Christian submitted that: a. The gully trap was blocked. He told [The tenant/s] that he would put a drain clearing product into it, but [The tenant/s] objected. b. He later put the drain clearing product in the drain without [The tenant/s]’s knowledge. The drain cleared briefly but then blocked again. c. He extended the pipe so that it discharged into a soakage field away from the house. d. Later (earlier this year) he altered this pipe, so it now discharges into another gully trap, which is not blocked. e. There was nothing to stop [The tenant/s] from continuing to use the kitchen sink.
The healthy homes obligation in respect of drainage relates to the drainage of stormwater and surface water.
The blocked drain was a maintenance issue. Mr Christian took action in response to the blocked drain problem. His solution of bypassing the drain and extending the kitchen pipe to discharge onto the ground away from the house was effective.
There is no breach of the landlord’s maintenance or healthy homes obligations in respect of this issue. Ventilation
Landlords must have extraction fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
An exemption can apply in certain circumstances (for example, if the construction of the house is such that it is not “reasonably practicable” to install an extraction fan). The landlord has the burden of proof to establish that they are eligible for an exception.
The premises did not have (and still does not have) extraction fans in the kitchen or bathroom. It is not proven that any exemption applies to these premises.
The premises did not meet the healthy homes standard in respect of ventilation. Draught stopping
Landlords must ensure that the premises do not have “unreasonable gaps or holes” that allow draughts.
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. Draughts enter from gaps around the windows. Mr Christian applied some “tape” around some of the windows, but this was not effective. b. Draughts enter from gaps around the front door. c. Draughts enter from gaps between the wooden floorboards. d. Draughts enter around the skirting boards in several parts of the house.
Mr Christian submitted that: a. He applied specialised draught stopping (compressed foam) tape around the windows. b. There are no unreasonable gaps around the front door. c. There are normal expansion gaps between the wooden floorboards, but no unreasonable gaps. d. There are no gaps around the skirting boards.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs in respect of some of these issues.
One photograph shows the floor. The photograph shows one gap between two floorboards that it is wider than the others – approximately 2-3mm. In the photograph [The tenant/s] has put a knife into the gap and the knife fits comfortably.
There are several photographs of windows. One shows a gap at the top of a frame, wide enough to see the sky through it (this photograph may have been taken before Mr Christian put tape around the windows).
One photograph shows the front door. There is a gap at the top of the door, but it is not excessive or unreasonable.
The evidence shows some, relatively minor, examples of unreasonable gaps in the premises that allow draughts. Insulation
The healthy homes standards require that premises must have qualifying underfloor and ceiling insulation.
Insulation is qualifying if 3 : a. It has the required R-value; and b. If it was installed after 1 July 2016, the installation complied with NZS4246:2016; and c. The insulation is in reasonable condition.
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. Mr Christian told her that there is ceiling insulation, and that it was installed approximately ten years ago. She has not been able to confirm the presence, or the condition, of ceiling insulation. b. Mr Christian fitted some underfloor insulation material, but it is not compliant.
Mr Christian submitted that: a. There is a ceiling hatch in the house, and he has inspected the ceiling insulation. It is in good condition and acceptable thickness. b. He installed Knauf earthwool batts under the floor, but he acknowledges that not all of the floor was covered at the start of this tenancy. He has since fitted some additional insulation (of the rigid type) to complete the underfloor insulation.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the earthwool batts were not installed in a compliant manner because the sides of the insulation are not folded down and stapled to the joists.
This is part of the NZS4246:2016 stipulation for the installation of ‘blanket’ style insulation products. It does not apply to batts.
Mr Christian provided a link to a video showing the manufacturer’s instructions on how to install Knauf earthwool batts. The photographs that [The tenant/s] provided show that Mr Christian installed the batts in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
My findings are: a. It is not proven that the property fails to meet the healthy homes standard for ceiling insulation. b. It is not proven that the earthwool batts insulation are not qualifying underfloor insulation. c. For most of the tenancy, the property did not meet the healthy homes standard for underfloor insulation because the underfloor insulation was incomplete. 3 Residential Tenancies (Smoke alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 Exemplary damages
Landlords must ensure that tenanted premises meet the healthy homes standards. Failure to do so is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.
Per my findings above, the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to 4 : 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. I accept that Mr Christian held the genuine, but incorrect, view that this was not a “real” tenancy, and that the usual obligations did not apply to it. b. Mr Christian has a somewhat casual approach to those landlord obligations. However, I will also note that Mr Christian has made some efforts to bring the premises up to the healthy homes standards. c. The purpose of the healthy homes standards is to ensure that premises are warm, dry, safe, and comfortable. [The tenant/s]’s experience of living in the house during winter last year was cold and unpleasant. This is shown in numerous messages that [The tenant/s] sent to Mr Christian. d. The premises did not meet the healthy homes standards in multiple respects. e. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords ensure that tenanted premises are warm, dry, and comfortable. The high level of exemplary damages that applies to the failure to meet the healthy homes standards reflects this.
The usual approach of the Tribunal with exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum, unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play 5 .
The fact that the premises fell short of the standards in multiple respects is an aggravating factor here.
I will award exemplary damages of $3,000.00. 4 Section 109 RTA 5 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been successful in this application and I must also award her the filing fee of $20.44.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on application to any party that has “wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings” 6 . [The tenant/s] has been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings. Name suppression is granted on that basis.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4810958 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards	$3,000.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	48. I will award exemplary damages of $3,000.00.
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Order

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

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 20 April 2024 sets out the background to this application.
The second hearing took place on 31 May 2024. Both parties participated in the hearing by phone, with the consent of the Tribunal. Healthy homes
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards 1 .
The healthy homes standards impose obligations on the landlords in respect of insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, heating, and drainage.
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 17 August 2023.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to comply with the healthy homes standards 2 . The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 for this unlawful act. Heating
The healthy homes standards require that premises must have a fixed means of heating in the largest living area in the house.
The means of heating: a. Cannot be an open fire or an unflued combustion heater. b. Can be an electric heater, but there are some restrictions on this. c. Must be capable of meeting the minimum heating capacity of the room (there is a formula for calculating this).
There was no fixed means of heating in these premises as at the compliance date.
Mr Christian submitted that he offered to install electric heaters but said that [The tenant/s] refused because the cost of running them. [The tenant/s] denied this.
Mr Christian submitted that there are text messages proving his offer of electric heaters, but I was not provided with evidence of those messages.
Whether or not Mr Christian did offer electric heaters during the tenancy, the burden was on him as landlord to ensure that the house was compliant by no later than 17 August 2023. He had the right to comply by means of installing electric heaters, provided that the relevant criteria were met. Mr Christian in fact ended up installing compliant electric panel heaters in May 2024 – unfortunately well past the 17 August 2023 deadline.
The property did not comply with the healthy homes standard in respect of heating. Kitchen sink drain 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 45(1A) RTA
[The tenant/s] submitted that the kitchen sink drain blocked in November 2023.
The drain that [The tenant/s] is referring to is a gully trap that two grey water pipes discharge into – one from the kitchen and one from the washing machine.
She informed Mr Christian. Mr Christian put an extension on the kitchen waste pipe so that it went beyond the gully trap onto another part of the property, and discharged onto the ground.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she has not used the kitchen sink since November 2023.
Mr Christian submitted that: a. The gully trap was blocked. He told [The tenant/s] that he would put a drain clearing product into it, but [The tenant/s] objected. b. He later put the drain clearing product in the drain without [The tenant/s]’s knowledge. The drain cleared briefly but then blocked again. c. He extended the pipe so that it discharged into a soakage field away from the house. d. Later (earlier this year) he altered this pipe, so it now discharges into another gully trap, which is not blocked. e. There was nothing to stop [The tenant/s] from continuing to use the kitchen sink.
The healthy homes obligation in respect of drainage relates to the drainage of stormwater and surface water.
The blocked drain was a maintenance issue. Mr Christian took action in response to the blocked drain problem. His solution of bypassing the drain and extending the kitchen pipe to discharge onto the ground away from the house was effective.
There is no breach of the landlord’s maintenance or healthy homes obligations in respect of this issue. Ventilation
Landlords must have extraction fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
An exemption can apply in certain circumstances (for example, if the construction of the house is such that it is not “reasonably practicable” to install an extraction fan). The landlord has the burden of proof to establish that they are eligible for an exception.
The premises did not have (and still does not have) extraction fans in the kitchen or bathroom. It is not proven that any exemption applies to these premises.
The premises did not meet the healthy homes standard in respect of ventilation. Draught stopping
Landlords must ensure that the premises do not have “unreasonable gaps or holes” that allow draughts.
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. Draughts enter from gaps around the windows. Mr Christian applied some “tape” around some of the windows, but this was not effective. b. Draughts enter from gaps around the front door. c. Draughts enter from gaps between the wooden floorboards. d. Draughts enter around the skirting boards in several parts of the house.
Mr Christian submitted that: a. He applied specialised draught stopping (compressed foam) tape around the windows. b. There are no unreasonable gaps around the front door. c. There are normal expansion gaps between the wooden floorboards, but no unreasonable gaps. d. There are no gaps around the skirting boards.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs in respect of some of these issues.
One photograph shows the floor. The photograph shows one gap between two floorboards that it is wider than the others – approximately 2-3mm. In the photograph [The tenant/s] has put a knife into the gap and the knife fits comfortably.
There are several photographs of windows. One shows a gap at the top of a frame, wide enough to see the sky through it (this photograph may have been taken before Mr Christian put tape around the windows).
One photograph shows the front door. There is a gap at the top of the door, but it is not excessive or unreasonable.
The evidence shows some, relatively minor, examples of unreasonable gaps in the premises that allow draughts. Insulation
The healthy homes standards require that premises must have qualifying underfloor and ceiling insulation.
Insulation is qualifying if 3 : a. It has the required R-value; and b. If it was installed after 1 July 2016, the installation complied with NZS4246:2016; and c. The insulation is in reasonable condition.
[The tenant/s] submitted that: a. Mr Christian told her that there is ceiling insulation, and that it was installed approximately ten years ago. She has not been able to confirm the presence, or the condition, of ceiling insulation. b. Mr Christian fitted some underfloor insulation material, but it is not compliant.
Mr Christian submitted that: a. There is a ceiling hatch in the house, and he has inspected the ceiling insulation. It is in good condition and acceptable thickness. b. He installed Knauf earthwool batts under the floor, but he acknowledges that not all of the floor was covered at the start of this tenancy. He has since fitted some additional insulation (of the rigid type) to complete the underfloor insulation.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the earthwool batts were not installed in a compliant manner because the sides of the insulation are not folded down and stapled to the joists.
This is part of the NZS4246:2016 stipulation for the installation of ‘blanket’ style insulation products. It does not apply to batts.
Mr Christian provided a link to a video showing the manufacturer’s instructions on how to install Knauf earthwool batts. The photographs that [The tenant/s] provided show that Mr Christian installed the batts in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
My findings are: a. It is not proven that the property fails to meet the healthy homes standard for ceiling insulation. b. It is not proven that the earthwool batts insulation are not qualifying underfloor insulation. c. For most of the tenancy, the property did not meet the healthy homes standard for underfloor insulation because the underfloor insulation was incomplete. 3 Residential Tenancies (Smoke alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 Exemplary damages
Landlords must ensure that tenanted premises meet the healthy homes standards. Failure to do so is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.
Per my findings above, the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to 4 : 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. I accept that Mr Christian held the genuine, but incorrect, view that this was not a “real” tenancy, and that the usual obligations did not apply to it. b. Mr Christian has a somewhat casual approach to those landlord obligations. However, I will also note that Mr Christian has made some efforts to bring the premises up to the healthy homes standards. c. The purpose of the healthy homes standards is to ensure that premises are warm, dry, safe, and comfortable. [The tenant/s]’s experience of living in the house during winter last year was cold and unpleasant. This is shown in numerous messages that [The tenant/s] sent to Mr Christian. d. The premises did not meet the healthy homes standards in multiple respects. e. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords ensure that tenanted premises are warm, dry, and comfortable. The high level of exemplary damages that applies to the failure to meet the healthy homes standards reflects this.
The usual approach of the Tribunal with exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum, unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play 5 .
The fact that the premises fell short of the standards in multiple respects is an aggravating factor here.
I will award exemplary damages of $3,000.00. 4 Section 109 RTA 5 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been successful in this application and I must also award her the filing fee of $20.44.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on application to any party that has “wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings” 6 . [The tenant/s] has been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings. Name suppression is granted on that basis.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4810958 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4810958 — 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