What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820583 about?

The tribunal order states: Jackie Tewhata must pay [The tenant/s] $1,820.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4820583?

Compensation: HHS Breach - Heating: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Enjoyment And Unlawful Entry: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820583?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10338325-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820583 about?

The tribunal order states: Jackie Tewhata must pay [The tenant/s] $1,820.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4820583?

Compensation: HHS Breach - Heating: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Enjoyment And Unlawful Entry: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820583?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10338325-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4820583 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820583 — net $1,820.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS breach - heating	$1,000.00	HHS breach - heating
enjoyment and unlawful entry	$800.00	enjoyment and unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,820.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,820.44

Order

Jackie Tewhata must pay [The tenant/s] $1,820.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy started in July 2023 and ended on 8 February 2024 after the tenant gave notice. During the last month of the tenancy the landlord visited the house five times, not including the final inspection. The tenant claims this was a breach of her quiet enjoyment and that the landlord entered when she was not entitled to. The tenant is also concerned that the heater in the lounge did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), and that the carpets were not reasonably clean. The landlord did not agree with any of these claims. The questions I have to decide are: • Were the visits by the landlord a breach of the tenant’s rights? • Did the heating comply with the HHS? • Was the carpet dirty? Were the visits by the landlord a breach of the tenant’s rights?
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages – which are like a penalty - may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (1), (2), (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord said she entered the premises for a routine inspection on 5 January 2024, and to show a prospective tenant through the house on 4 February 2024. I find the routine inspection was allowed under section 48 RTA. I ask not persuaded the landlord actually took a prospective tenant though on 4 February because she never mentioned the new tenant when she described what she and her husband did at the house on 4 February.
The landlord always gave notice. Giving notice is not the only requirement under section 48 – there must also be a valid reason. The landlord said the visits were to check the smoke alarms, a heater and the “electrics”, but I find she was really just keeping an eye on the tenant.
On 4 February the landlord’s husband entered the shed to check what was still in there. There was absolutely no reason for the husband to enter the shed to check the “electrics”. I do not find the tenant has proved the shed lock was forced, because anyone could have had access to the shed. I am persuaded that the landlord opened drawers and cupboards inside the house.
I find landlord had no reason to enter the house on five occasions between 6 January and 8 February. This was breach by the landlord.
The tenant also said these visits amounted to an interference with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(2) and (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The tenant did everything she could to let the landlord know that she was not entitled to enter the house. I have advised the tenant that she could have refused entry, but at the time the tenant felt she had done all she could to assert her rights and the landlord still insisted on coming. As the tenant pointed out moving is already very stressful, and having to constantly deal with requests for access was draining. I find there was a pattern of behaviour by the landlord that arose from an unreasonable distrust, and that wore the tenant out.
This tenant has claimed compensation rather than exemplary damages. I allow compensation in the amount of $200 a week for the last 4 weeks of the tenancy for the breaches of quiet enjoyment and the unlawful entries. In deciding this amount I have considered the weekly rent of $600, the persistent requests for entry, and the breach of privacy by opening the shed, cupboards and drawers when the tenant was not home.

Did the heating comply with the HHS?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) and considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard. This is because there was no heatpump in the living room. The landlord said the 2.2 – 2.4 kW panel heater attached to the wall was sufficient to heat the house and she was not going to install a heatpump. The HHS compliance date for this house was 8 November 2023 – 120 days after the start of the new tenancy.
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. See section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord submitted that the lounge was 16m2 and the tenancy agreement states the required heating capacity for the lounge is 2.4kW, but she did not provide me with a copy of the heating calculations. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool. There is no way I can assess compliance without these calculations.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. However, I cannot see that any exemptions apply here. An electrician told the landlord that it is possible to install a heatpump. The house is an old wooden house built in the 1960s. It has another house attached to it, but it is not an apartment. It seems most likely to me a heatpump is required to comply with the HHS.
The tenant said the house was very cold and her power bills were over $600 a week. Everyone was sick. The house was dry, but she could not keep it warm using the heater provided in the lounge. The landlord told the tenant she had no intention of installing a heatpump during this tenancy. I find compensation in the amount of $1000 is reasonable. This is what I would have allowed if the tenant had claimed exemplary damages. In deciding this amount I have taken the landlord’s breach and tenant’s decision to move early into account. The tenant said she mostly moved because the landlord refused to install a heatpump and the tenant could not face another winter in the house.
I also note that the landlord did not properly complete the HHS compliance statement in the tenancy agreement. While this was not part of the tenant’s claim, I do want to let the landlord know that section 13A(1CA) RTA requires landlords to include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide the insulation statement, or up to $900.00 for knowingly providing false or misleading information.

Was the carpet dirty?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45 of the RTA by not providing the carpets in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not agree. The tenant did not have the better evidence here. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is also allowed because the tenant is the most successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820583 — net $1,820.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: HHS breach - heating	$1,000.00	HHS breach - heating
enjoyment and unlawful entry	$800.00	enjoyment and unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,820.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,820.44

Order

Jackie Tewhata must pay [The tenant/s] $1,820.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy started in July 2023 and ended on 8 February 2024 after the tenant gave notice. During the last month of the tenancy the landlord visited the house five times, not including the final inspection. The tenant claims this was a breach of her quiet enjoyment and that the landlord entered when she was not entitled to. The tenant is also concerned that the heater in the lounge did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), and that the carpets were not reasonably clean. The landlord did not agree with any of these claims. The questions I have to decide are: • Were the visits by the landlord a breach of the tenant’s rights? • Did the heating comply with the HHS? • Was the carpet dirty? Were the visits by the landlord a breach of the tenant’s rights?
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages – which are like a penalty - may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (1), (2), (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord said she entered the premises for a routine inspection on 5 January 2024, and to show a prospective tenant through the house on 4 February 2024. I find the routine inspection was allowed under section 48 RTA. I ask not persuaded the landlord actually took a prospective tenant though on 4 February because she never mentioned the new tenant when she described what she and her husband did at the house on 4 February.
The landlord always gave notice. Giving notice is not the only requirement under section 48 – there must also be a valid reason. The landlord said the visits were to check the smoke alarms, a heater and the “electrics”, but I find she was really just keeping an eye on the tenant.
On 4 February the landlord’s husband entered the shed to check what was still in there. There was absolutely no reason for the husband to enter the shed to check the “electrics”. I do not find the tenant has proved the shed lock was forced, because anyone could have had access to the shed. I am persuaded that the landlord opened drawers and cupboards inside the house.
I find landlord had no reason to enter the house on five occasions between 6 January and 8 February. This was breach by the landlord.
The tenant also said these visits amounted to an interference with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(2) and (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
The tenant did everything she could to let the landlord know that she was not entitled to enter the house. I have advised the tenant that she could have refused entry, but at the time the tenant felt she had done all she could to assert her rights and the landlord still insisted on coming. As the tenant pointed out moving is already very stressful, and having to constantly deal with requests for access was draining. I find there was a pattern of behaviour by the landlord that arose from an unreasonable distrust, and that wore the tenant out.
This tenant has claimed compensation rather than exemplary damages. I allow compensation in the amount of $200 a week for the last 4 weeks of the tenancy for the breaches of quiet enjoyment and the unlawful entries. In deciding this amount I have considered the weekly rent of $600, the persistent requests for entry, and the breach of privacy by opening the shed, cupboards and drawers when the tenant was not home.

Did the heating comply with the HHS?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) and considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard. This is because there was no heatpump in the living room. The landlord said the 2.2 – 2.4 kW panel heater attached to the wall was sufficient to heat the house and she was not going to install a heatpump. The HHS compliance date for this house was 8 November 2023 – 120 days after the start of the new tenancy.
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. See section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord submitted that the lounge was 16m2 and the tenancy agreement states the required heating capacity for the lounge is 2.4kW, but she did not provide me with a copy of the heating calculations. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool. There is no way I can assess compliance without these calculations.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. However, I cannot see that any exemptions apply here. An electrician told the landlord that it is possible to install a heatpump. The house is an old wooden house built in the 1960s. It has another house attached to it, but it is not an apartment. It seems most likely to me a heatpump is required to comply with the HHS.
The tenant said the house was very cold and her power bills were over $600 a week. Everyone was sick. The house was dry, but she could not keep it warm using the heater provided in the lounge. The landlord told the tenant she had no intention of installing a heatpump during this tenancy. I find compensation in the amount of $1000 is reasonable. This is what I would have allowed if the tenant had claimed exemplary damages. In deciding this amount I have taken the landlord’s breach and tenant’s decision to move early into account. The tenant said she mostly moved because the landlord refused to install a heatpump and the tenant could not face another winter in the house.
I also note that the landlord did not properly complete the HHS compliance statement in the tenancy agreement. While this was not part of the tenant’s claim, I do want to let the landlord know that section 13A(1CA) RTA requires landlords to include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide the insulation statement, or up to $900.00 for knowingly providing false or misleading information.

Was the carpet dirty?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45 of the RTA by not providing the carpets in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not agree. The tenant did not have the better evidence here. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is also allowed because the tenant is the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820583 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820583 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the heating comply with the HHS?

Was the carpet dirty?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the heating comply with the HHS?

Was the carpet dirty?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions