What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839761 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must

How much money was awarded in case 4839761?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839761?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10489882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839761 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must

How much money was awarded in case 4839761?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839761?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10489882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4839761 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4839761 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must not be published.
Angela McNicholl and David Cameron-Smith must pay [the tenants] $2,270.58 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing.
Aaron Haabjoern of Yellow Group Property Management attended the hearing for the landlords. Mr Haabjoern is now the property manager for the premises.
Of the two landlords, the landlord, Angela McNicholl, was principally involved in the tenancy. Ms McNicholl lives overseas. Her sister, who lives locally, helped her with the tenancy when required.
The tenants claim the landlords breached nine of their duties under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), namely: a. That the landlord knowingly to be falsely claimed the home complied with the healthy homes standards (HHS). 1 b. Failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. 2 c. Interfered with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. 3 d. Failed to comply with the HHS and building regulations in respect to ventilation. 4 e. Failed to notify the tenants of the landlord’s change of name or address. 5 f.Failed to notify the tenants of a successor landlord. 6 g. Failed to appoint an agent despite being out of the country for more than 21 consecutive days. 7 h. Breached her duties in respect to the bond. 8 i.Required payment of rent more than two weeks in advance. 9
The tenants seek compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord does not oppose the tenants’ claim for reimbursement for the cost of their HHS report. An order is made for that. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 13A(1F); Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS regs). 2 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 3 RTA, s 38(3). 4 HHS regs, reg 21-24. 5 RTA, s 16(2). 6 RTA, s15(2). 7 RTA, s 16A. 8 RTA, s 19(2). 9 RTA, 23(4). Background
The tenancy is for a fixed term beginning 17 February 2024 and ending on 15 February 2025.
Mr Haabjoern was not involved in the tenancy to begin with. His company was only instructed about a month into the tenancy after the tenants lodged their claim in the Tribunal.
When the tenants viewed the premises on about 7 January 2024 before the tenancy began, they raised several concerns including uncleanliness around the dining room decks and the rundown outbuilding. The landlord indicated the issues would be addressed prior to the tenants moving in.
The home did not have to comply with the HHS until 120 days after the tenancy began. Nonetheless, Ms McNicholl assured the tenants that the premises already fully complied with the HHS and signed the tenancy agreement to that effect.
Despite Ms McNicholl’s assurances, after they moved in, the tenants noticed several HHS issues and commissioned a HHS report that confirmed that the premises did not comply with the HHS because: the kitchen extractor fan did not vent outside; there was inadequate draught stopping in respect to windows or doors in three bedrooms, the lounge, the kitchen/dining area, and a hallway; there was insufficient heating provided for the living room; and there were some gaps in the ceiling insulation.
Ms McNicholl now accepts the home did not meet the HHS but maintains she honestly thought it did when she let the home.
The landlord has since attended to the bulk of the issues, although the tenants complain there is still a draught problem with a back door. Mr Haabjoern assured the Tribunal that this remaining issue would be looked into and if necessary would be addressed without delay.
The tenants also claim the rear deck and outbuilding was not reasonably clean when they moved in, and that they had to clean these areas themselves.
The tenants work from home, and say they were inconvenienced by the premises having to be brought up to HHS and repaired. They have recorded about 13 disruptions due to contractors and others having to enter the premises. The issues the Tribunal must decide
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlords knowingly falsely claim the premises complied with the HHS? b. Should the landlords be ordered to compensate the tenants for misrepresenting the home’s compliance with the HHS? c. Did the landlords fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition? d. Did the landlords interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy? e. Did the landlords fail to comply with the HHS or ventilation rules? f.Did the landlords breach any of their other obligations as alleged?

Did the landlord knowingly falsely claim the premises complied with the HHS?

The HHS did not apply until four months (120 days) after the tenancy commenced, namely 16 June 2024.
However, Ms McNicholl assured the tenants that the home already met all of the standards. Legal principles
Under s 13A(1F) of the RTA, it is an unlawful act for the landlord to make a statement about HHS compliance in the tenancy agreement that they know is misleading.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. 10 .
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 11 10 RTA, s 13(1F)(b) and Schedule 1A. 11 RTA, s 109(3). Discussion
The main evidence that the landlord knew her HHS compliance statement was wrong is the fact that the premises were not compliant in several respects.
Some of the windows and doors had excessive gaps, the fixed wall heater was underpowered, the kitchen extractor fan did not externally ventilate, and the insulation needed some minor attention.
Mr Haabjoern submitted a letter from the landlord in which she says: At the time of advertising the house for rent I genuinely thought that the house complied wit the Healthy Homes Standards...before the tenant move, I further engaged a qualified builder, Scott Rendie, to carry out various checks and repairs in preparation for the house to be occupied. In addition I sought, I sought advice from a qualified electrician and plumber and they also conducted various checks and repairs on the houses...Consequently, it came as a complete shock to me to find out that my house did not comply...
Mr Haabjoern also submitted a letter from the landlords’ builder stating that at the start of the tenancy, “I genuinely believed there were not draught or ventilation issues and was not aware of any”.
Neither the landlords nor the builder attended the hearing, however. The Tribunal telephone Ms McNicholl’s telephone number but she was only available on WhatsApp, which the Court’s telephones could not use.
Landlords who know or suspect their rental does not comply with the HHS do not usually proclaim that it does. They are more likely to keep quiet. Here the landlord made a point of proclaiming the home was compliant. Moreover, the landlords’ previous tenants were content with the house, and the landlords’ builder had been at the premises as the tenancy began and was not aware of any issues. That is consistent with the landlord’s claim that she did not knowingly mislead the tenants about the home’s non-compliance.
Considering all of the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord knowingly misled the tenants about the home’s compliance with the HHS. Conclusion
If follows, this claim is dismissed.

Should the Tribunal compensate the tenants for the HHS non-compliance?

Although, the Tribunal has found that Ms McNicholl did not knowingly mislead the tenants about the home’s compliance. She, nonetheless, made a representation to the tenants that the home was HHS compliant. That representation was a factor in the tenants agreeing to the tenancy.
If there is a representation that induces an innocent party to enter an agreement, the Tribunal may award damages to the innocent party. 12
I am satisfied that the tenants were induced to enter into the tenancy agreement by the landlord’s representation.
That being so, damages are appropriate.
I consider that from the start of the tenancy on 17 February 2024 until 10 May 2024, when the heat pump and the insulation were attended to, the rate of damages should be 10 per cent of the weekly rent.
From 11 May to the date of hearing, the rate of damages should be 5 percent of the weekly rent.
The total amount ordered for lack of amenity relating to the HHS misrepresentation is $1,461.43.

Did the landlords fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Landlords must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 13 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 if the unlawful act is committed intentionally. 14
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard of an average disinterested bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard.
The tenants were in particular dissatisfied with the dog-related residues and odours they experienced at the premises. 12 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s 35. 13 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 14 RTA, s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A.
The landlord filled out the Property Inspection Report in respect to the “garage/carport” and “grounds” as “good”. However, the tenants recorded “Shed is filthy – needs a power wash – dog poo, garden beds are dead. Deck smells – needs power wash”.
The landlord submitted an invoice dated 5 March 2024 proving the landlords paid a contractor $747.50 to wash the entire exterior of the property including the decks prior to the tenancy beginning (the date of the invoice being later than the tenancy start date is not inconsistent with the work being done earlier).
The landlords stored their own surf boards or wind surfers under the deck.
The tenants say woolly/hairy detritus on the boards is dog hair. The landlords’ opinion is that it is disintegrating insulation they had placed over the boards. I cannot determine what that substance is from the photographs. However, it does not seem to be in dispute that the previous tenants’ Malamute dogs habituated the allegedly despoiled deck area.
Ms [the female tenant] submitted the dogs had defecated on the wooden deck and the faeces had gotten into deck grooves, causing the smell. I carefully viewed the photographs but could not see evidence of this, but of course photographs cannot show everything.
The location of the landlords’ boards does not tally with the area being filthy with dog faeces. It is not probable the landlords would have kept their boards there if the area was filthy with dog droppings. Nor does it seem likely that the dogs would defecate on the decks when there was a garden nearby. Moreover, the previous tenants would not likely have tolerated an ongoing issue of that kind if it were occurring.
I did not see photographs of the interior of the outbuilding that showed it was not reasonably clean.
The photographs do show the tenants’ son water blasting the decks and inside the outbuilding. The tenants say they had to spend about six hours to clean these areas.
Nonetheless the tenants’ photographs are inconclusive on the claim.
Having considered the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I find I am not persuaded that the landlord did not provide the premises reasonably clean.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace and privacy?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 15
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. 16
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". 17
The tenants complain that they suffered persistent contractor intrusions that amounted to an interference with their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. They were led to believe that the house complied with the HHS, but it did not. They then had to endure the landlord’s contractors entering the premises to remediate the problems.
The tenants recorded attendances at the house on February: 17, 18, 19; March 8, 10, 27; April 12, 16; and May 1, 2, 9, 15, and 23.
Mr Haabjoern submitted that tenants have to expect some entries onto the premises for maintenance, repairs, inspections, and other matters related to the tenancy. The landlord gave the tenants proper notice under the RTA of any required entries.
Any lawful entry can be regarded an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace. It is a question of fact and degree whether the Tribunal will regard the interference to be of a kind that compensation is called for.
In this case, the landlord’s contractors or agents were coming about every week. While the attendances clearly did not amount to harassment, they are at a level beyond what the tenants would have naturally expected given the landlord’s assurance to them the home was HHS-compliant.
I consider that compensation should be awarded for the breach. I set the amount for damages at 50 per cent of one week’s rent. 15 RTA, s 38(2). 16 RTA, 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 17 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

Did the landlords fail to comply with the HHS or ventilation rules?

The tenants claim the landlord failed to comply with the ventilation standards under the HHS and the Building Regulations.
The HHS ventilation standard did not apply. The Building Regulation standard is supplanted by the specific standard that applies to residential tenancies. 18
The tenants were under the misapprehension that there was something wrong with the gas stove/oven. However, the landlord produced a gas appliance compliance certificate dated 31 January 2024. Nor are kitchen extractor fans intended to expel cooking gas, they are to expel cooking fumes and odours.
This claim is dismissed. Are the tenants’ other claims proven?
As mentioned above, the tenants also claimed that the landlords failed to notify the tenants of the landlord’s change of name or address, failed to notify the tenants of a successor landlord, failed to appoint an agent despite being out of the country for more than 21 consecutive days, breached their duties in respect to the bond, and required payment of rent more than two weeks in advance.
I do consider there was much in these claims. Briefly: The landlord did not change their name or address. The landlord remained the landlord; there was no successor. The landlord’s sister acted as the landlord’s agent where required, and in this age of immediate communication, it was quite acceptable for the landlord to engage with the tenants from overseas. There was no evidence of delays or any loss to the tenants as a result of this. The bond was lodged when it ought to have been. The landlord did not require rent to be paid more that two weeks in advance. Filing fee
Both parties have succeeded to some extent in this claim. In the landlords’ case that success is in defending many of the claims.
No order is made for the filing fee in the circumstances. 18 Lex specialis. Where there is a specific rule applying to a situation, it is to be preferred to a rule that was not crafted for that situation. Non-publication
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have succeeded with their claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is granted.

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must not be published.
Angela McNicholl and David Cameron-Smith must pay [the tenants] $2,270.58 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing.
Aaron Haabjoern of Yellow Group Property Management attended the hearing for the landlords. Mr Haabjoern is now the property manager for the premises.
Of the two landlords, the landlord, Angela McNicholl, was principally involved in the tenancy. Ms McNicholl lives overseas. Her sister, who lives locally, helped her with the tenancy when required.
The tenants claim the landlords breached nine of their duties under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), namely: a. That the landlord knowingly to be falsely claimed the home complied with the healthy homes standards (HHS). 1 b. Failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. 2 c. Interfered with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. 3 d. Failed to comply with the HHS and building regulations in respect to ventilation. 4 e. Failed to notify the tenants of the landlord’s change of name or address. 5 f.Failed to notify the tenants of a successor landlord. 6 g. Failed to appoint an agent despite being out of the country for more than 21 consecutive days. 7 h. Breached her duties in respect to the bond. 8 i.Required payment of rent more than two weeks in advance. 9
The tenants seek compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord does not oppose the tenants’ claim for reimbursement for the cost of their HHS report. An order is made for that. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 13A(1F); Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS regs). 2 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 3 RTA, s 38(3). 4 HHS regs, reg 21-24. 5 RTA, s 16(2). 6 RTA, s15(2). 7 RTA, s 16A. 8 RTA, s 19(2). 9 RTA, 23(4). Background
The tenancy is for a fixed term beginning 17 February 2024 and ending on 15 February 2025.
Mr Haabjoern was not involved in the tenancy to begin with. His company was only instructed about a month into the tenancy after the tenants lodged their claim in the Tribunal.
When the tenants viewed the premises on about 7 January 2024 before the tenancy began, they raised several concerns including uncleanliness around the dining room decks and the rundown outbuilding. The landlord indicated the issues would be addressed prior to the tenants moving in.
The home did not have to comply with the HHS until 120 days after the tenancy began. Nonetheless, Ms McNicholl assured the tenants that the premises already fully complied with the HHS and signed the tenancy agreement to that effect.
Despite Ms McNicholl’s assurances, after they moved in, the tenants noticed several HHS issues and commissioned a HHS report that confirmed that the premises did not comply with the HHS because: the kitchen extractor fan did not vent outside; there was inadequate draught stopping in respect to windows or doors in three bedrooms, the lounge, the kitchen/dining area, and a hallway; there was insufficient heating provided for the living room; and there were some gaps in the ceiling insulation.
Ms McNicholl now accepts the home did not meet the HHS but maintains she honestly thought it did when she let the home.
The landlord has since attended to the bulk of the issues, although the tenants complain there is still a draught problem with a back door. Mr Haabjoern assured the Tribunal that this remaining issue would be looked into and if necessary would be addressed without delay.
The tenants also claim the rear deck and outbuilding was not reasonably clean when they moved in, and that they had to clean these areas themselves.
The tenants work from home, and say they were inconvenienced by the premises having to be brought up to HHS and repaired. They have recorded about 13 disruptions due to contractors and others having to enter the premises. The issues the Tribunal must decide
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlords knowingly falsely claim the premises complied with the HHS? b. Should the landlords be ordered to compensate the tenants for misrepresenting the home’s compliance with the HHS? c. Did the landlords fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition? d. Did the landlords interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy? e. Did the landlords fail to comply with the HHS or ventilation rules? f.Did the landlords breach any of their other obligations as alleged?

Did the landlord knowingly falsely claim the premises complied with the HHS?

The HHS did not apply until four months (120 days) after the tenancy commenced, namely 16 June 2024.
However, Ms McNicholl assured the tenants that the home already met all of the standards. Legal principles
Under s 13A(1F) of the RTA, it is an unlawful act for the landlord to make a statement about HHS compliance in the tenancy agreement that they know is misleading.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. 10 .
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 11 10 RTA, s 13(1F)(b) and Schedule 1A. 11 RTA, s 109(3). Discussion
The main evidence that the landlord knew her HHS compliance statement was wrong is the fact that the premises were not compliant in several respects.
Some of the windows and doors had excessive gaps, the fixed wall heater was underpowered, the kitchen extractor fan did not externally ventilate, and the insulation needed some minor attention.
Mr Haabjoern submitted a letter from the landlord in which she says: At the time of advertising the house for rent I genuinely thought that the house complied wit the Healthy Homes Standards...before the tenant move, I further engaged a qualified builder, Scott Rendie, to carry out various checks and repairs in preparation for the house to be occupied. In addition I sought, I sought advice from a qualified electrician and plumber and they also conducted various checks and repairs on the houses...Consequently, it came as a complete shock to me to find out that my house did not comply...
Mr Haabjoern also submitted a letter from the landlords’ builder stating that at the start of the tenancy, “I genuinely believed there were not draught or ventilation issues and was not aware of any”.
Neither the landlords nor the builder attended the hearing, however. The Tribunal telephone Ms McNicholl’s telephone number but she was only available on WhatsApp, which the Court’s telephones could not use.
Landlords who know or suspect their rental does not comply with the HHS do not usually proclaim that it does. They are more likely to keep quiet. Here the landlord made a point of proclaiming the home was compliant. Moreover, the landlords’ previous tenants were content with the house, and the landlords’ builder had been at the premises as the tenancy began and was not aware of any issues. That is consistent with the landlord’s claim that she did not knowingly mislead the tenants about the home’s non-compliance.
Considering all of the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord knowingly misled the tenants about the home’s compliance with the HHS. Conclusion
If follows, this claim is dismissed.

Should the Tribunal compensate the tenants for the HHS non-compliance?

Although, the Tribunal has found that Ms McNicholl did not knowingly mislead the tenants about the home’s compliance. She, nonetheless, made a representation to the tenants that the home was HHS compliant. That representation was a factor in the tenants agreeing to the tenancy.
If there is a representation that induces an innocent party to enter an agreement, the Tribunal may award damages to the innocent party. 12
I am satisfied that the tenants were induced to enter into the tenancy agreement by the landlord’s representation.
That being so, damages are appropriate.
I consider that from the start of the tenancy on 17 February 2024 until 10 May 2024, when the heat pump and the insulation were attended to, the rate of damages should be 10 per cent of the weekly rent.
From 11 May to the date of hearing, the rate of damages should be 5 percent of the weekly rent.
The total amount ordered for lack of amenity relating to the HHS misrepresentation is $1,461.43.

Did the landlords fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Landlords must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 13 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 if the unlawful act is committed intentionally. 14
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard of an average disinterested bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard.
The tenants were in particular dissatisfied with the dog-related residues and odours they experienced at the premises. 12 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s 35. 13 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 14 RTA, s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A.
The landlord filled out the Property Inspection Report in respect to the “garage/carport” and “grounds” as “good”. However, the tenants recorded “Shed is filthy – needs a power wash – dog poo, garden beds are dead. Deck smells – needs power wash”.
The landlord submitted an invoice dated 5 March 2024 proving the landlords paid a contractor $747.50 to wash the entire exterior of the property including the decks prior to the tenancy beginning (the date of the invoice being later than the tenancy start date is not inconsistent with the work being done earlier).
The landlords stored their own surf boards or wind surfers under the deck.
The tenants say woolly/hairy detritus on the boards is dog hair. The landlords’ opinion is that it is disintegrating insulation they had placed over the boards. I cannot determine what that substance is from the photographs. However, it does not seem to be in dispute that the previous tenants’ Malamute dogs habituated the allegedly despoiled deck area.
Ms [the female tenant] submitted the dogs had defecated on the wooden deck and the faeces had gotten into deck grooves, causing the smell. I carefully viewed the photographs but could not see evidence of this, but of course photographs cannot show everything.
The location of the landlords’ boards does not tally with the area being filthy with dog faeces. It is not probable the landlords would have kept their boards there if the area was filthy with dog droppings. Nor does it seem likely that the dogs would defecate on the decks when there was a garden nearby. Moreover, the previous tenants would not likely have tolerated an ongoing issue of that kind if it were occurring.
I did not see photographs of the interior of the outbuilding that showed it was not reasonably clean.
The photographs do show the tenants’ son water blasting the decks and inside the outbuilding. The tenants say they had to spend about six hours to clean these areas.
Nonetheless the tenants’ photographs are inconclusive on the claim.
Having considered the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I find I am not persuaded that the landlord did not provide the premises reasonably clean.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace and privacy?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 15
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. 16
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". 17
The tenants complain that they suffered persistent contractor intrusions that amounted to an interference with their reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. They were led to believe that the house complied with the HHS, but it did not. They then had to endure the landlord’s contractors entering the premises to remediate the problems.
The tenants recorded attendances at the house on February: 17, 18, 19; March 8, 10, 27; April 12, 16; and May 1, 2, 9, 15, and 23.
Mr Haabjoern submitted that tenants have to expect some entries onto the premises for maintenance, repairs, inspections, and other matters related to the tenancy. The landlord gave the tenants proper notice under the RTA of any required entries.
Any lawful entry can be regarded an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace. It is a question of fact and degree whether the Tribunal will regard the interference to be of a kind that compensation is called for.
In this case, the landlord’s contractors or agents were coming about every week. While the attendances clearly did not amount to harassment, they are at a level beyond what the tenants would have naturally expected given the landlord’s assurance to them the home was HHS-compliant.
I consider that compensation should be awarded for the breach. I set the amount for damages at 50 per cent of one week’s rent. 15 RTA, s 38(2). 16 RTA, 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 17 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

Did the landlords fail to comply with the HHS or ventilation rules?

The tenants claim the landlord failed to comply with the ventilation standards under the HHS and the Building Regulations.
The HHS ventilation standard did not apply. The Building Regulation standard is supplanted by the specific standard that applies to residential tenancies. 18
The tenants were under the misapprehension that there was something wrong with the gas stove/oven. However, the landlord produced a gas appliance compliance certificate dated 31 January 2024. Nor are kitchen extractor fans intended to expel cooking gas, they are to expel cooking fumes and odours.
This claim is dismissed. Are the tenants’ other claims proven?
As mentioned above, the tenants also claimed that the landlords failed to notify the tenants of the landlord’s change of name or address, failed to notify the tenants of a successor landlord, failed to appoint an agent despite being out of the country for more than 21 consecutive days, breached their duties in respect to the bond, and required payment of rent more than two weeks in advance.
I do consider there was much in these claims. Briefly: The landlord did not change their name or address. The landlord remained the landlord; there was no successor. The landlord’s sister acted as the landlord’s agent where required, and in this age of immediate communication, it was quite acceptable for the landlord to engage with the tenants from overseas. There was no evidence of delays or any loss to the tenants as a result of this. The bond was lodged when it ought to have been. The landlord did not require rent to be paid more that two weeks in advance. Filing fee
Both parties have succeeded to some extent in this claim. In the landlords’ case that success is in defending many of the claims.
No order is made for the filing fee in the circumstances. 18 Lex specialis. Where there is a specific rule applying to a situation, it is to be preferred to a rule that was not crafted for that situation. Non-publication
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have succeeded with their claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839761 — Healthy homes

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839761 — Healthy homes

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord knowingly falsely claim the premises complied with the HHS?

Should the Tribunal compensate the tenants for the HHS non-compliance?

Did the landlords fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlords fail to comply with the HHS or ventilation rules?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord knowingly falsely claim the premises complied with the HHS?

Should the Tribunal compensate the tenants for the HHS non-compliance?

Did the landlords fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlords fail to comply with the HHS or ventilation rules?