What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4853320 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 4853320?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- g…: $2,166.67 awarded to tenant; Door: $3,510.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; From December 2022 To March 2024-117…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $708.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853320?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10588882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4853320 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 4853320?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- g…: $2,166.67 awarded to tenant; Door: $3,510.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; From December 2022 To March 2024-117…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $708.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853320?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10588882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4853320 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4853320 — net $8,588.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 04/04/24	$708.57		2024. [Tenant’s name supressed] was obliged to pay rent of $520.00 from that date; and.
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain- garage		$2,400.00	Failure to maintain- garage
door		$3,510.00	door
Compensation: Failure to maintain- garage door		$2,166.67	n of extensive repairs, renovations. e.
from December 2022 to March 2024-117 weeks at		$1,200.00	from December 2022 to March 2024-117 weeks at
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$708.57	$9,297.11
Net award		$8,588.54
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,588.54

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4853320 — net $8,588.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 04/04/24	$708.57		2024. [Tenant’s name supressed] was obliged to pay rent of $520.00 from that date; and.
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain- garage		$2,400.00	Failure to maintain- garage
door		$3,510.00	door
Compensation: Failure to maintain- garage door		$2,166.67	n of extensive repairs, renovations. e.
from December 2022 to March 2024-117 weeks at		$1,200.00	from December 2022 to March 2024-117 weeks at
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$708.57	$9,297.11
Net award		$8,588.54
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,588.54

Order

The landlords must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Tuesday 13 August 2024: a. The stove elements must be tested by an electrician, repaired or replaced if necessary and written confirmation given to the tenant that all elements are in full working order; b. The oven must be tested by an electrician, repaired or replaced if necessary and written confirmation given to the tenant that it is in full working order and it holds its temperature; c. The bathroom and bedroom window latches are to be investigated and repaired/replaced so that they can easily be opened and closed by an average person of average strength and no drafts are coming through these windows.
If the landlords fail to comply with Orders 1(a) to (c) above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $4,500.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Qi Ye Liang and Jing Liu must pay [the tenant] $8,588.54 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 May 2024.
The landlords applied for termination of the tenancy, possession, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the application fee.
The tenant has made a cross application for: a. Compensation for an unlawful rent increase; b. Rent reduction due to the rent being charged being above market rate; c. Exemplary damages for an attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds; d. Exemplary and general damages for failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; e. Exemplary and general damages for failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; f. Exemplary and general damages for breaches of the insulation and ventilation healthy homes standards; and g. Work orders for the stove, oven and window latches in the bedroom and bathroom. Background and Prior Order 4783177
On 9 February 2024, Adjudicator Blake heard the landlords’ application 4783177 for termination of the tenancy and possession and made the following Orders: a. The landlords’ application for possession was dismissed. b. The hearing was adjourned so that the tenant’s cross application could be heard later as not enough time had been allocated to hear both applications as the tenant’s cross application has been filed the day prior to the hearing.
The landlords have since made a further application for termination of the tenancy, possession and rent arrears under a new application 4853320.
Adjudicator Blake’s 9 February 2024 Order records: a. This tenancy began on 26 August 2022 as a one-year fixed term tenancy. [Tenant’s name supressed] is the sole named tenant in the tenancy agreement, but from beginning of the tenancy his mother occupied the unit and not him. Both parties evidence shows the landlords consented to this arrangement. b. The tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy after the expiry of the initial 12- month fixed term. c. On 16 October 2023 the landlords issued a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. The stated ground for termination is that the landlords intend to carry out extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in the property while the work is done. d. [Tenant’s name supressed] disputed the landlords’ termination notice on the grounds that: i. There is no evidence that the landlords need to, or intend to, carry out work that is so extensive that it cannot be done while he remains in the property; and ii. He entered into a new tenancy agreement with the landlords that commenced on 17 January 2024, which supersedes the termination notice. e. A conclusion that: i. The information provided by the landlords does not satisfy me that they need to (or intend to) carry out extensive repairs at the premise; ii. [Tenant’s name supressed] had verbally agreed to accept the terms of the new tenancy agreement that commenced on 17 January 2024, even though he had not signed it; and iii. The email from the landlords records a binding agreement. There was offer and acceptance, and the terms of the agreement were sufficiently clear; iv. A new periodic tenancy began on 17 January 2024. [Tenant’s name supressed] was obliged to pay rent of $520.00 from that date; and. v. [Tenant’s name supressed] argument that the new agreement supersedes the termination notice is proven and the landlords explicit grant of a new tenancy is not consistent an argument that the earlier termination notice remains in effect. Was the tenant’s rent increased unlawfully and are there rent arrears?
During 23 May 2024 hearing, the tenant claimed that while he did agree to the terms of the new tenancy agreement, for his mother to have an extended period of time to find alternative accommodation, he never agreed to the rent increase of $90.00 per week starting until the landlords had made some significant improvements to the premise that warranted such an increase.
The tenant provided me with several text and email messages that showed he had objected to the rent increase and that this is why he had not signed the new tenancy agreement.
The tenant also claims that the landlords was required to give the tenant 60 days’ notice of the rent increase and he did not.
The landlords directed me to Adjudicator Blake’s 9 February 2024 Order where he found “[tenant’s name supressed] had verbally agreed to accept the terms of the new tenancy agreement that commenced on 17 January 2024, even though he had not signed it; The email from the landlords records a binding agreement. There was offer and acceptance, and the terms of the agreement were sufficiently clear, and; A new periodic tenancy began on 17 January 2024. [Tenant’s name supressed] was obliged to pay rent of $520.00 from that date”.
The landlords also stated that [tenant’s name supressed] had accepted that he had agreed to the new tenancy agreement terms and conditions during the 9 February 2024 hearing and invited me to listen to the recorded hearing.
I listened to the recorded 9 February 2024 hearing and at 31 minutes and 10 seconds into the hearing the Adjudicator asks the “are you saying that you were offered a new tenancy agreement on specific terms and conditions, and you accepted the tenancy?” The tenant replies “yes, yes, yes. This is what I meant because first of all like the whole issue was if the issue was the rental increase, that's no problem that can be sorted, that can be fixed and that's no issue. They're good people and I understand expenses, you know and all that, but it's just a matter of communication I think end of the day”. At 31 minutes and 42 seconds into the recording the Adjudicator seeks clarification form the tenant when he says “There is a really important difference between talking about a new tenancy, talking about terms, and we could do this, and we can do that. That's one thing versus we have a deal. Did you have a deal”. The tenant replies at 31 minutes and 53 seconds of the recording “Yes”. The Adjudicator then makes one last effort to ensure he is clear about the tenant’s response and at 31 minutes and 59 seconds of the recording he asks, “what are the terms of the agreement”? The tenant replies at 32 minutes and 6 seconds on the recording “that was pretty much on the email. He confirms the rent the new agreement will start on the 17 th of January and the rent will be $520.00”.
I accept Adjudicator Blake’s conclusion that the tenant agreed to extend the tenancy by accepting the new terms and conditions of tenancy offered by the landlords in his 16 January 2024 email which says: “The new agreement will start tomorrow (17/01/2024). The weekly rent will be $520/week. We will sign a new agreement tomorrow. Please pay $360 for your bond and $520 for your first week rent please. Do you want to meet in the unit 3pm tomorrow (17/01/2024) to sign the new agreement?”
The tenant had 5 working day to request a rehearing if he considered Adjudicator Blake had wrongly admitted or rejected evidence and he did not avail himself of that opportunity. He could still make an application for a rehearing out of time if he still considers that his or the landlords’ evidence was wrongly admitted or rejected and that led to a factually or legally incorrect outcome from the original 9 February 2024 hearing. Additionally, the tenant could have appealed the 9 February 2024 Order based on it allegedly being factually or legally incorrect and the tenant not agreeing with it. The tenant did not do this either.
For the reasons outlined above, the 9 February 2024 Order stands. The tenant must pay the weekly rental of $520.00 per week from 17 January 2024, despite not having been given 60-day notice of the increase and not having signed the new tenancy agreement. As such, the landlords claim for $708.57 rent arrears, to 4 April 2024, is owing and has been proven by the rent summary provided by the landlords. Is the tenant’s current rent above market rate?
[The tenant] claims the landlords are seeking rent more than the market rent set by the Tenancy Tribunal.
Where the Tribunal has made a market rent order under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlords cannot require the tenant to pay an amount more than that order. See section 27(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 27(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlords increased the rent to $520.00 per week, by agreement of the parties to a new tenancy agreement from 17 January 2024.
The photographs provided of the rental premise show it is a brick and tile unit, which is the second one of four units that are connected in a row, it was built circa 1950’s and is in average condition for a building of its age. It has 2 bedrooms, a bathroom, kitchen, dining and lounge and has a garage that is situated beneath unit 4.
Tenancy Services database shows that market rate for similar rental premises in the same area are $498.00 per week in the lower quartile, $530.00 per week average/ market median and $560.00 per week for the upper quartile.
If the premise had been renovated to a higher standard of repair, than what the evidence shows it is currently, I would be satisfied the upper quartile rent would be appropriate. Given the standard of repair of the premise, I find the market median is an appropriate rate for the landlords to set the rent at.
The tenant’s claim that the rent being charged is above market rate is dismissed for lack of evidence and the Tribunal declines to make a market rent order accordingly.

Did the landlords attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The tenant claims that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords, during both the 9 February 2024 and the 23 May 2024 hearings, confirmed they gave the tenant 90 days’ notice pursuant to s51(2)(f) of the RTA terminating the tenancy on 16 January 2024 so they could begin extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises within 90 days after the termination and that it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken.
During the 9 February 2024 hearing, Adjudicator Blake noted “The information provided by the landlords does not satisfy me that they need to (or intend to) carry out extensive repairs at the premises”.
At the 23 May 2024 hearing, the landlord produced a quote from Rosser Residential Ltd, dated 26 March 2024, that provides quotes $26,602.45 for undertaking repairs to five window frames, the kitchen and bedroom floors and to repairs to the garage timber framing that it says has been damaged by water. The email attached to the quote says the tenant must move out of the premise in order for the scope of works to be undertaken.
The landlord has provided some photographic evidence to me that shows some rotten window frames that need some repair and some framing at the base of the garage wall that has rotted. No evidence has been provided to show why the kitchen and bedrooms floors require replacement.
The tenant confirmed he was not aware of any issues with the bedroom and kitchen floors.
The tenant also submitted that there are no problems with the window frames that cannot be undertaken while the tenancy continues and that there are some maintenance issues that require attention, such as the stove, but nothing so extensive that the property needs to be vacant for the maintenance work to be done.
Landlords must be sure of their ground when issuing a notice to terminate a tenancy for the reason of extensive repairs, renovations etc. The mere possibility of extensive work, or an unsubstantiated suspicion that work may be required, is not a sufficient basis for terminating the tenancy 1 .
I am not satisfied that the additional evidence provided by the landlords proves they need to (or intend to) carry out extensive repairs at the premises that cannot be done while the tenancy remains on foot.
I find they have 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlords have not proven: a. The extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises was so urgent that it had to be undertaken within 90 days of the 16 January 2024, particularly because it was critical to the integrity of the structure of unit 4 above the tenant’s garage and unit 4 could fall down if the wooden framing was not replaced urgently; and b. The refurbishments/repairs to the house and the garage could not be undertaken while the tenant remained living at the premise.
If the work that was quoted for was so urgent, the landlord would not have agreed to withdraw the termination notice and offer the tenant a further periodic tenancy for an undefined period for an additional $90.00 per week rent. 1 Lloyd v Say & Pheng [2023] NZTT 4611029, Tenant v Oxygen.co.nz Ltd [2023] NZTT 4562294.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlords to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlords sent the tenant mixed messages by terminating the tenancy and then withdrawing the termination on the condition he agree to the terms and conditions of a new tenancy agreement that contained a higher rental rate. This shows the landlords used a new tenancy agreement to get $90.00 more rent each week from the tenant without having to provide the tenant with 60 days’ notice of a rent increase and suggests the grounds for the termination notice were not legitimate and were unlawful; b. The tenant suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with not being able to find alternative accommodation and being forced to agree to a higher rental rate in a new tenancy agreement or be out on the street with nowhere to live. The tenant gave evidence this was a stressful and uncertain time for him and his mother; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress and inconvenience they have lived with since the landlord attempted to terminate the tenancy without grounds; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their requirement to be sure of their ground when issuing a notice to terminate a tenancy for the reason of extensive repairs, renovations. e. I make an order for the landlord to pay $2,166.67 in exemplary damages (one third the maximum penalty available) for their breach of s60AA of the RTA. accordingly. I am satisfied that this quantum is appropriate given the landlord withdrew the termination notice and did not persist with trying to terminate the tenancy without proven grounds.

Have the landlords failed to comply with their s45 RTA obligations?

[The tenant] claims that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45(1)(a), a landlord must provide the premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(1)(bb) a landlord must also comply the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45 obligations is an unlawful act for which a total amount of exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
The tenant says the premise was not clean and tidy when he took possession of it on 26 August 2022. Further he says the house was cockroach infested and was dirty.
The tenant did not provide any photographic evidence or evidence of any communications with the landlords that support his claims.
The landlord produced evidence that the tenant had ticked and signed of the entry inspection report for the property, which records the condition of the property was acceptable to the tenant on 28 August 2022. Further, the landlords produced evidence they had engaged a pest control company to carry out pest control at the premise on 20 august 2022, just before the tenancy commenced and that it had a warranty period of 6months. The landlords say that if the tenant had raised issues about a cockroach infestation, they would have asked the pest control company to come back to treat the property again without any further costs being incurred by them.
The landlords also say they cleaned the premise thoroughly before the tenancy commenced and disagree the premise was not reasonably clean and tidy when the tenant took possession on 26 August 2022.
I am satisfied the tenant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim the premise was not reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy started. I dismiss the claim accordingly. B. Failure to maintain
The tenant claims that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA because thy failed to repair and maintain the premise to a reasonable standard during the tenancy. Specifically, that the oven does not retain a consistent temperature and some of the stove elements did not work properly, and the garage door was left damaged and unable to be opened for a period of 117 weeks.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation.
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 2 . Garage door
The tenant has provided evidence that proves he first raised the issue by email with the landlords, on 23 December 2022 at 7:58pm, that the garage roller door had been damaged. At the time he conveys that he thought it had been broken into.
On 7 May 2023 at 1:17pm the tenant sends a follows up email to the landlord that corrected this initial impression. After having investigated the incident further he had found someone had backed into the garage door and damaged it to the extent it could not be opened and closed. He did not know who that person was. He says “Hi Peter, someone did not try to break into the garage. Someone reversed into it. We do not know who it was. Can you please repair the garage door. Thank you, Paul”. He says he got no response for the landlords.
The tenant says he called the landlords again in June 20203 to follow them up and left a message asking them to call him about getting the garage door. He says and the landlords called him back and informed him they would get the garage door repaired in the summer if he had the contents of the garage removed as there was no space to do the repair in. By then the garage door had been damaged for 6 months.
The tenant provided emails that show in February/early March 2024, he continued communicating with the landlords about the need for the garage door to be repaired. These emails show the landlords confirm they will arrange for a technician to come to investigate and repair the garage door but require him to empty the garage contents before the door can be repaired. The emails from March 2024 confirm the landlords want the tenant remove all of his/his mother’s belongings so they can also undertake the repairs to the wooden framing in the outer part of the internal garage wall, that the photographs’ provided show was rotten at the base.
The tenant confirms he has nowhere else to store his/his mother’s belongings while the repairs are undertaken. The landlords do not offer the tenant any rent reduction to pay for storage or the loss of amenity of the garage while the repairs are being undertaken.
The landlords gave evidence that eventually they went to the house to ask the tenant’s mother for permission to remove the stuff out of the front section of the garage while the technician repaired the garage door and to replace it back again 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. as soon as the repair was complete. The landlords say the tenant’s mother gave them permission and sent the tenant’s aunt to supervise this.
The repair was completed some time in the middle of March 2024.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenants by not getting the damaged garage door repaired in a reasonable timeframe and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this breach of section 45 of the RTA section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 117-week period he and his mother suffered the stress and inconvenience of a not being able to access the garage they were paying rent to be able to access. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for that period. $30 per week x 117 weeks =$3,510.00 rent rebate ordered. Stove/Oven
The tenant says some of the elements on the stove top did not all work well or at all at the commencement of the tenancy and the landlord took a considerable amount of time to remedy this. He says this resulted in his mother suffering the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity of a number of stove elements.
The landlords deny this allegation and say the elements were all working well at the start of the tenancy and the tenant has never raise this issue with them until these proceedings. The landlord confirmed one switch on the stove stopped working and they repaired this as soon as they were informed about it.
The tenant says he had a number of conversations with the landlord about the faulty elements and that his aunt was there when the landlords undertook a routine property inspection where the tenant’s mother showed the landlord which elements were not working, as she was cooking at the time. The tenant did not provide a witness statement from his mother or aunt to back this assertion up and they were not present at the hearing to give evidence in support of the tenant’s claim. The tenant did not provide any other evidence to support his claims about the stove elements.
The tenant also says he has raised the issue with the oven losing heat and it not maintaining a constant temperature. The landlords deny the tenant has ever raised this with them and the tenant was unable to provide me with any evidence to support this claim.
I am satisfied the tenant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims the landlord failed to repair and maintain the stove/oven to a reasonable standard. I dismiss the claim accordingly. C. Breach of healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlords have breached the landlords obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant claims the landlords’ have failed to comply with the HHS ventilation and insulation standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS standards 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.
The HHS does provide for some exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching any of the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). Insulation standard
In accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, the premise was required to be compliant with the insulation standard.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The healthy homes insulation standard built on these regulations and requires existing insulation to be topped up or replaced so it continues to meet the required minimum R-value.
The tenant’s tenancy commenced well after 1 July 2019. Therefore, the landlord was required to meet the insulation standard, unless an exemption applied.
The original tenancy agreement shows the landlords have committed to comply with the healthy homes standards and have completed all the required healthy homes statements and information to how the premise meets the ceiling and floor insulation standards. This section of the tenancy agreement contains no information about whether the house has installation in the walls. However, wall insulation is not compulsory.
The insulation standard does not make wall insulation compulsory in rental premises.
The tenant did not provide any evidence to support his claim that the premise did not have ceiling and/or underfloor insulation or that this insulation failed to be the minimum R-value. This claim fails and is dismissed accordingly. Ventilation standard
The ventilation standard requires rental homes to have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen and bedrooms. Kitchens and bathrooms must have extractor fans or an acceptable continuous mechanical ventilation system.
Mould and dampness caused by poor ventilation is harmful for tenants’ health as well as landlords’ property. The ventilation standard targets mould and dampness in rental homes.
The tenant says the premise failed to meet the ventilation standard because the external door did not close properly and let draft in. He provided no evidence to prove his claim that one of the external doors was ill fitting and let draught into the premise and even if he had, this would not constitute a breach of the ventilation standard but is a potential breach of the draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that landlords make sure the property doesn’t have unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors and doors which cause noticeable draughts.
There was no evidence produced by the tenant during the hearing to support any claim the premise failed to meet the ventilation or the draught stopping standards. The landlord provided statements in the tenancy agreement that confirms the premise does meet both of these healthy homes standards and the tenant has presented nothing that refutes this. The tenant’s claim for breach of the ventilation and/or draught stopping standard is dismissed for lack of evidence to the prove the claim. Work Order
The tenant claims that the landlords did not repair the stove and that it does not hold its heat or stay at a consistent temperature, and this reduces the tenant’s mother’s amenity of the stove he is paying rent for her to have full use and enjoyment of. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
The tenant also claims the bathroom and bedroom window latches cannot easily be opened and closed by an average person of average strength and drafts are coming through these windows as they cannot be shut properly.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlords have an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlords have failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlords to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlords the costs of doing the work, if the landlords should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords have consented to must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Tuesday 13 August 2024: a. The stove elements must be tested by an electrician, repaired or replaced if necessary and written confirmation given to the tenant that all elements are in full working order; b. The oven must be tested by an electrician, repaired or replaced if necessary and written confirmation given to the tenant that it is in full working order and it holds its temperature; c. The bathroom and bedroom window latches are to be investigated and repaired/replaced so that they can easily be opened and closed by an average person of average strength and no drafts are coming through these windows.
If the landlords fail to comply with these Orders, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $4,500.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Should the tenancy be terminated for repeated rent breaches?

Section 56(1) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that: a. The other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and b. In the case of a breach capable of remedy: i. The applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and ii. The other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and c. That the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The landlord provided three 14-day notices requiring the tenant to pay his rent arrears. They are dated 12 March 2024, 19 March 2024 and 5 April 2024.
The landlord has provided a rent summary that proves the tenant refused to pay the $90 per week rent increase and consequently had accrued $708.57 rent arrears by 4 April 2024.
The landlord says the tenant is in breach of the tenancy agreement the 9 February 2023 Order states in legally binding and enforceable, including the new weekly rent rate of $520.00 per week. Further, the tenant has continued to refuse to pay the correct weekly rent despite the 9 February 2024 Order.
The tenant say he did not agree with the 9 February 2024 Order in that he maintained he had agreed to pay the new rental rate conditional on the landlord doing the required repairs and maintenance to get the rental premise to the reasonably required standard and that post the 9 February 2024 Order, the landlord had not undertaken any of the required repairs and maintenance and the premise is still not at a level that could be said to be a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. As such, he has withheld rent until after this hearing as he considered he had an equitable offset to the rent arrears being claimed by the landlords.
The tenant has proven he has an equitable offset to the rent arrears claimed by the landlords and the amounts awarded to him in this Order will most likely offset the $90.00 per week rental increase for a further 95 weeks from 4 April 2024. Therefore, there is no breach of the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s claim for possession is dismissed as there are no grounds that justify me making an order terminating the tenancy. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that where the applicant has been wholly or substantially successful in his or her claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with his claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Qi Ye Liang and Jing Liu have not substantially succeeded with their claim I have dismissed their claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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 tenant has substantially succeeded in his proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853320 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853320 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Have the landlords failed to comply with their s45 RTA obligations?

Should the tenancy be terminated for repeated rent breaches?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Have the landlords failed to comply with their s45 RTA obligations?

Should the tenancy be terminated for repeated rent breaches?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions