What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4845701?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4845701?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845701?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10793910-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4845701?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4845701?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845701?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10793910-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Fourteenth Avenue, Tauranga South, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4845701 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant claims that the landlord breached the healthy homes standards (HHS) in relation to draught stopping. The tenant initially claimed exemplary damages, and later amended the claim include compensation for excessive electricity costs. Law

Where the tenancy starts after 1 July 2021, but before 28 August 2022, the property must be compliant with the HHS within 90 days of the start date.

The draught stopping standard requires premises to be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, and which allow draughts to occur (45(1)(bb) RTA and subpart 5 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019). Relevant factors include the size and location of the gap, the extent of draught, the combined effect where there is more than one gap, and the likely effect on heat loss. The age and condition of the house must not be taken into account.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 (s 45(1A) RTA). The Tribunal must be satisfied that the breach was intentional and that it would be just to award exemplary damages. Relevant factors are the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest (s 109(3) RTA).

The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Background

The landlord obtained a healthy homes assessment on 25 September 2020. The report stated that there were no signs of gaps or holes causing unreasonable draughts and that the house met the draught standard.

The tenancy started on 2 July 2021. There is no evidence that the property had ceased to comply in the meantime.

The landlord has had remedial work carried out on windows and doors during the tenancy: a. 28 September 2021: adjust piano room door and service and adjust three locks and hinges. b. 30 December 2021: hinges on patio doors, window stay, metal bar upper and lower kitchen doors, and draught stop to kitchen door. c. 14 March 2023

On 31 October 2023, the tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord alleging several breaches of its obligations including “stopping and sealing draughts”. The notice required the breaches to be remedied by 14 November.

On 1 November, the landlord sent Autocrat Joinery a work order. The covering email referred to water ingress in one of the bedroom windows. The landlord provided the tenant’s name and number for access.

On 2 November, the landlord asked Autocrat to assess and quote on any door or window frames requiring draught stopping. The landlord also sent a recommendation from the plumber who had visited the property that a glazier check window putty and seals, and fit draught stoppers to windows and doors.

The landlord sent Autocrat a follow up email on 8 November. On 10 November, Autocrat replied that it had left a message for the tenant and hoped to visit the property the following Monday or Tuesday. On 15 November, Autocrat advised that the tenant had not made contact.

On 15 November, the landlord wrote to the tenant about the various issues in the 14-day notice. In relation to the joinery, the landlord said the joinery company had contacted her to arrange access and asked her to confirm with them when was suitable. The landlord says it did not receive a reply.

Autocrat has provided a letter stating that after several attempts to contact the tenant, they finally managed to arrange a site visit for 26 February 2024. They provided a quote for remedial work. The letter described the house as being in good condition for its age and that ongoing maintenance is to be expected. It said door and window seals deteriorate over time, which can lead to draughts and water ingress during abnormal weather events.

Did the landlord breach the draught stopping standards?

The tenant provided several photos taken in October 2023 showing a gap between the kitchen door and door frame and some water ingress in one of the bedroom windows. The tenant says that there were gaps with all of the French doors, though no photos were provided.

It is likely there was an excessive gap between the kitchen door and frame. There is insufficient supporting evidence for the other joinery to make any finding they were non-compliant.

Was the breach intentional?

Draught stopping was applied to the kitchen door in December 2021, so it is likely there was either deterioration to the stopping material or some movement with the door.

Where there is a change that results in a previously complaint area becoming non-compliant, the landlord will only become aware of this if notified by the tenant or it is noticed during a routine inspection. I have no evidence about the inspections, so therefore conclude that the first the landlord became aware of any potential issue was when the tenant served the 14-day notice.

Where the need for repair is brought to a landlord’s notice, they must act on it within a reasonable time. There was an excessive delay in this case, although contributing factors included lack of contact from the tenant and the Christmas break. Taking all background factors into account, I find that the landlord did not intentionally fail to comply with the draught stopping standard or intentionally avoid or delay dealing with it.

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

Lack of intent, while precluding exemplary damages, does not prevent the Tribunal from awarding compensation: negligence or unreasonable delay will suffice.

The tenant’s claim for compensation is based on excessive power accounts. She has provided accounts for the period May 2023 to April 2024. The accounts are undoubtedly high. However, because of my finding that the landlord was not aware of the recurring draught issue until 31 October 2023, I cannot realistically consider compensation for the period prior to this (i.e., over the winter period). The tenant was not able to adequately explain how any draughts led to extra power usage over the relevant period. Even over the winter period she says she made minimal use of the heat pump in the living room.

The tenant also provided evidence from her doctor of medical expenses between October 2021 and October 2023. Although there was no claim for general compensation, even if there was, there is insufficient evidence to prove any connection between the condition of the house and the ailments suffered.

For these reasons, the claim for compensation is not proved. Because the claim has been unsuccessful, there are insufficient grounds to order name suppression. J P Smith 04 September 2024

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Where the tenancy starts after 1 July 2021, but before 28 August 2022, the property must be compliant with the HHS within 90 days of the start date.

The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Background

The tenancy started on 2 July 2021. There is no evidence that the property had ceased to comply in the meantime.

Did the landlord breach the draught stopping standards?

It is likely there was an excessive gap between the kitchen door and frame. There is insufficient supporting evidence for the other joinery to make any finding they were non-compliant.

Was the breach intentional?

Draught stopping was applied to the kitchen door in December 2021, so it is likely there was either deterioration to the stopping material or some movement with the door.

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

Lack of intent, while precluding exemplary damages, does not prevent the Tribunal from awarding compensation: negligence or unreasonable delay will suffice.

For these reasons, the claim for compensation is not proved. Because the claim has been unsuccessful, there are insufficient grounds to order name suppression. J P Smith 04 September 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845701 — Leaks at 9 Fourteenth Avenue, Tauranga South, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845701 — Leaks at 9 Fourteenth Avenue, Tauranga South, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the draught stopping standards?

Was the breach intentional?

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the draught stopping standards?

Was the breach intentional?

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions