What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4849746 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 4849746?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $172.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $114.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849746?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849746?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10395022-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4849746 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 4849746?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $172.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $114.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849746?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849746?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10395022-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4849746 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4849746 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849746 — net $343.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$172.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$114.95		Water rates
Repairs	$120.00		Repairs
Compensation		$750.00	Compensation
Total award	$406.95	$750.00
Net award		$343.05
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$343.05

Claims and awards for application 4849746 — net $343.05 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $172.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $114.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Compensation

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Total award

Landlord $406.95 · Tenant $750.00

Net award

Tenant $343.05

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $343.05

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — Healthy Homes Standards

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlords names and identifying details.
The tenants are [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 3].
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $343.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,170.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The remaining applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant sought reimbursement of the bond, compensation/exemplary damages for failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) and failure to provide an oven.
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
For the sake of brevity, I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

Who are the tenants?

This tenancy has been in place since 2013. The original tenants were [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2].
In 2021, [Tenant 3] moved in. [Tenant 2] moved out. There was an email advising the landlord of this.
The landlord disputes that there was a change of tenants, or that the email sent was sufficient, noting that various checks had to be carried out and a fee for process that change was required. The tenants did not pay the fee.
While I am not required to make a ruling on the point, I consider that fee akin to a letting fee, which is now prohibited by the Act.
The most recent tenancy renewal, in January 2022 does not appear to have been formalised in a tenancy agreement but created by an exchange of emails. The landlord’s email to the tenants says: “Dear [Tenant 1], [Tenant 3] Hope you’re well. Your tenancy expires soon and is due for renewal.”
So, at that point, the landlord appears to have accepted that [Tenant 3] was a tenant. That is the tenants’ position also.
I am satisfied that there was a change in tenant in 2021 in formally, then prior to the 2022 renewal there was an acknowledged change as reflected in the email set out above.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord alleges the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants dispute this.
The landlord has provided no evidence in support of his claim, beyond the verbal statement.
I do not consider this landlord has proved this claim, and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to a toilet seat. b. Carpet stains. c. Replacement fan filters. d. Damage to plaster and a door handle.
The landlord says the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In relation to the toilet seat, this damage was notified to the landlords at the time and explained as the tenant’s nana using the toilet and rising awkwardly, which broke the seat. This doesn’t not appear to have been careless or caused by any wilful misuse of the toilet. I am not satisfied that the damage is careless. Accordingly, the tenant has disproved liability and the landlord’s application is dismissed.
In relation to the carpet stains, I note that this tenancy has lasted for more than 11 years. The carpet is 12-13 years old. I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Generally, carpet in a rental property has a useful lifespan on 10 years, so this carpet has reached the end of its useful life.
Accordingly, I consider there is no evidence of loss, caused by staining to the carpet. This is confirmed by the fact that the carpet has not been replaced, and the premises is currently tenanted for $540 per week, which is more than the tenants were paying.
For completeness, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to show damage to the carpets to the extent that replacement was needed. There is no ingoing property inspection, and very few photos of the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
In relation to the replacement of fan filters in the kitchen extract fan, I consider this is a maintenance issue. Even with ordinary use, fan filters will require changing and there is no evidence that the tenants used the fan in anything other than a proper manner.
This portion of the claim is dismissed.
In relation to the walls and door handles, the tenants accept liability for some of this damage. The issue is quantum. The landlord relies on quotes to do the work given by contractors. However, the repairs were done by employees of the landlord. The landlord says the work took 4 hours (2 employees, for 2 hours each). He assesses their charges at $45 per hour, although there is no independent corroboration of this.
The tenants submit that the landlord had previously sought $120 for this work, and they agreed with that quantum.
I consider that the agreed amount of $120 is a fair quantum, given the lack of independent verification of the costs to the landlord, and the general approach of the Tribunal to set a rate of $25-$35 per hour for work done by landlords personally.
The amounts ordered are proved. Occupants
[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord seeks an additional $20 per week in rent for the period it says there were three occupants. The landlord says it became aware that [Tenant 3] was living at the address in 2022.
The tenant denies there were three occupants. Their evidence is that [Tenant 2] moved out when [Tenant 3] moved in. the tenant relies on an email to the landlord on 14 May 2021 advising the landlord of the change, together with the landlord’s response confirming that change.
There is no evidence to support the allegation that [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3] resided at the premises at the same time. The contemporaneous correspondence refers to [Tenant 2] moving out when [Tenant 3] moved in, and that landlord was aware of that.
I am not satisfied the tenants have breached the maximum occupancy of the premises, and the landlord’s application is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards
Section 46(1)(bb) of the RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
While this tenancy commenced in 2013, it was renewed annually for a further one-year fixed term. Further in 2021 there was a change of tenants. I consider that the renewal of the tenancy and the change in tenants was sufficient to trigger the requirement for compliance with the HHS within 90 days of the renewal in January 2022. Heating
[Tenant 1] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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.
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/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
In this case, the heating calculation the landlord relies on was prepared in another apartment with an identical layout to the premises. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate action, given the calculation relies on features such as room and window sizes which are standard between apartments.
The landlord states that the apartments require a 2Kw heater. The landlord purchased a number of 2.4Kw free standing heaters. The fire proofing between apartments cannot have anything drilled into it, so free standing heater are required. The landlord offered a heater to the tenants who declined it.
The tenants deny that they declined to accept a heater.
The landlord provided the receipts for the purchase of a number of heaters. These do not show allocation or installation in a particular apartment. However, I accept that landlord’s evidence that the heaters were available to whichever tenants wanted them.
That said, the HHS requires installation of compliant heaters. It is common ground that this was not done in the tenants’ apartment. I do not consider it is acceptable for the landlord to deal with this on an opt in basis. There is a legislated obligation to provide sufficient heating to meet the standards.
I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that I am not satisfied that the landlord’s actions were an intentional breach such that the stigma of exemplary damages is appropriate. However, this is a breach of the Act, and I consider the tenant should be compensated for the landlord’s failure. I award $750.00 pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act. Draught stopping
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
In this the tenant alleges that there is a large gap under the door which renders it non-compliant with the draught stopping standards. A photograph of the gap was provided.
The landlord accepts that there is a gap under the door, however, notes that this is a requirement of the building’s ventilation system, which draws air into the apartment via that gap, for ventilation purposes. The landlord’s evidence is that this system was part of the building consent application and consent was granted with that requirement.
I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. Accordingly, I consider the gap under the door is reasonable, and it not in breach of the Act.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Oven
The tenants allege that the landlord has not provided them with an oven, for the duration of the tenancy. This application is advance in reliance on the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. Regulation 7(2)(b) provides that housing for 2 or more people must have a kitchen or kitchenette with “adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.”
The tenant says there were provided with a microwave and hotplate, but not means of baking.
The landlord’s position is that the microwave provided is a combination appliance which has setting as a microwave and as an oven with baking and grilling abilities. The landlord further noted that the tenants never complained about the lack of oven, and had they done so, the use of the microwave as an oven and grill would have been explained to them.
The tenants accepts that there were three setting buttons on the appliance, but that they were not aware that it was able to bake.
Having heard the evidence and seen the photographs of the appliance provided, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements of the regulations. Accordingly, the landlord has not breached his obligations and this portion of the claim is dismissed. Suppression
As both parties have been substantially successful in either their claims or their defences of claims against them, both applications for suppression are granted.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849746 — net $343.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$172.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$114.95		Water rates
Repairs	$120.00		Repairs
Compensation		$750.00	Compensation
Total award	$406.95	$750.00
Net award		$343.05
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$343.05

Claims and awards for application 4849746 — net $343.05 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $172.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $114.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Compensation

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Total award

Landlord $406.95 · Tenant $750.00

Net award

Tenant $343.05

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $343.05

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — Healthy Homes Standards

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlords names and identifying details.
The tenants are [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 3].
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $343.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,170.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The remaining applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant sought reimbursement of the bond, compensation/exemplary damages for failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) and failure to provide an oven.
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
For the sake of brevity, I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

Who are the tenants?

This tenancy has been in place since 2013. The original tenants were [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2].
In 2021, [Tenant 3] moved in. [Tenant 2] moved out. There was an email advising the landlord of this.
The landlord disputes that there was a change of tenants, or that the email sent was sufficient, noting that various checks had to be carried out and a fee for process that change was required. The tenants did not pay the fee.
While I am not required to make a ruling on the point, I consider that fee akin to a letting fee, which is now prohibited by the Act.
The most recent tenancy renewal, in January 2022 does not appear to have been formalised in a tenancy agreement but created by an exchange of emails. The landlord’s email to the tenants says: “Dear [Tenant 1], [Tenant 3] Hope you’re well. Your tenancy expires soon and is due for renewal.”
So, at that point, the landlord appears to have accepted that [Tenant 3] was a tenant. That is the tenants’ position also.
I am satisfied that there was a change in tenant in 2021 in formally, then prior to the 2022 renewal there was an acknowledged change as reflected in the email set out above.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord alleges the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants dispute this.
The landlord has provided no evidence in support of his claim, beyond the verbal statement.
I do not consider this landlord has proved this claim, and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to a toilet seat. b. Carpet stains. c. Replacement fan filters. d. Damage to plaster and a door handle.
The landlord says the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In relation to the toilet seat, this damage was notified to the landlords at the time and explained as the tenant’s nana using the toilet and rising awkwardly, which broke the seat. This doesn’t not appear to have been careless or caused by any wilful misuse of the toilet. I am not satisfied that the damage is careless. Accordingly, the tenant has disproved liability and the landlord’s application is dismissed.
In relation to the carpet stains, I note that this tenancy has lasted for more than 11 years. The carpet is 12-13 years old. I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Generally, carpet in a rental property has a useful lifespan on 10 years, so this carpet has reached the end of its useful life.
Accordingly, I consider there is no evidence of loss, caused by staining to the carpet. This is confirmed by the fact that the carpet has not been replaced, and the premises is currently tenanted for $540 per week, which is more than the tenants were paying.
For completeness, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to show damage to the carpets to the extent that replacement was needed. There is no ingoing property inspection, and very few photos of the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
In relation to the replacement of fan filters in the kitchen extract fan, I consider this is a maintenance issue. Even with ordinary use, fan filters will require changing and there is no evidence that the tenants used the fan in anything other than a proper manner.
This portion of the claim is dismissed.
In relation to the walls and door handles, the tenants accept liability for some of this damage. The issue is quantum. The landlord relies on quotes to do the work given by contractors. However, the repairs were done by employees of the landlord. The landlord says the work took 4 hours (2 employees, for 2 hours each). He assesses their charges at $45 per hour, although there is no independent corroboration of this.
The tenants submit that the landlord had previously sought $120 for this work, and they agreed with that quantum.
I consider that the agreed amount of $120 is a fair quantum, given the lack of independent verification of the costs to the landlord, and the general approach of the Tribunal to set a rate of $25-$35 per hour for work done by landlords personally.
The amounts ordered are proved. Occupants
[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord seeks an additional $20 per week in rent for the period it says there were three occupants. The landlord says it became aware that [Tenant 3] was living at the address in 2022.
The tenant denies there were three occupants. Their evidence is that [Tenant 2] moved out when [Tenant 3] moved in. the tenant relies on an email to the landlord on 14 May 2021 advising the landlord of the change, together with the landlord’s response confirming that change.
There is no evidence to support the allegation that [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3] resided at the premises at the same time. The contemporaneous correspondence refers to [Tenant 2] moving out when [Tenant 3] moved in, and that landlord was aware of that.
I am not satisfied the tenants have breached the maximum occupancy of the premises, and the landlord’s application is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards
Section 46(1)(bb) of the RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
While this tenancy commenced in 2013, it was renewed annually for a further one-year fixed term. Further in 2021 there was a change of tenants. I consider that the renewal of the tenancy and the change in tenants was sufficient to trigger the requirement for compliance with the HHS within 90 days of the renewal in January 2022. Heating
[Tenant 1] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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.
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/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
In this case, the heating calculation the landlord relies on was prepared in another apartment with an identical layout to the premises. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate action, given the calculation relies on features such as room and window sizes which are standard between apartments.
The landlord states that the apartments require a 2Kw heater. The landlord purchased a number of 2.4Kw free standing heaters. The fire proofing between apartments cannot have anything drilled into it, so free standing heater are required. The landlord offered a heater to the tenants who declined it.
The tenants deny that they declined to accept a heater.
The landlord provided the receipts for the purchase of a number of heaters. These do not show allocation or installation in a particular apartment. However, I accept that landlord’s evidence that the heaters were available to whichever tenants wanted them.
That said, the HHS requires installation of compliant heaters. It is common ground that this was not done in the tenants’ apartment. I do not consider it is acceptable for the landlord to deal with this on an opt in basis. There is a legislated obligation to provide sufficient heating to meet the standards.
I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that I am not satisfied that the landlord’s actions were an intentional breach such that the stigma of exemplary damages is appropriate. However, this is a breach of the Act, and I consider the tenant should be compensated for the landlord’s failure. I award $750.00 pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act. Draught stopping
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
In this the tenant alleges that there is a large gap under the door which renders it non-compliant with the draught stopping standards. A photograph of the gap was provided.
The landlord accepts that there is a gap under the door, however, notes that this is a requirement of the building’s ventilation system, which draws air into the apartment via that gap, for ventilation purposes. The landlord’s evidence is that this system was part of the building consent application and consent was granted with that requirement.
I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. Accordingly, I consider the gap under the door is reasonable, and it not in breach of the Act.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Oven
The tenants allege that the landlord has not provided them with an oven, for the duration of the tenancy. This application is advance in reliance on the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. Regulation 7(2)(b) provides that housing for 2 or more people must have a kitchen or kitchenette with “adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.”
The tenant says there were provided with a microwave and hotplate, but not means of baking.
The landlord’s position is that the microwave provided is a combination appliance which has setting as a microwave and as an oven with baking and grilling abilities. The landlord further noted that the tenants never complained about the lack of oven, and had they done so, the use of the microwave as an oven and grill would have been explained to them.
The tenants accepts that there were three setting buttons on the appliance, but that they were not aware that it was able to bake.
Having heard the evidence and seen the photographs of the appliance provided, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements of the regulations. Accordingly, the landlord has not breached his obligations and this portion of the claim is dismissed. Suppression
As both parties have been substantially successful in either their claims or their defences of claims against them, both applications for suppression are granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849746 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849746 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who are the tenants?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who are the tenants?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions