What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4858140 about?

This case concerned a healthy homes dispute. The net award was $270.44.

How much money was awarded in case 4858140?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4858140?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4858140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10882655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4858140 about?

This case concerned a healthy homes dispute. The net award was $270.44.

How much money was awarded in case 4858140?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4858140?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4858140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10882655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4858140 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4858140 — net $270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages failing to provide HHS compliance statement	$250.00	Exemplary damages failing to provide HHS compliance statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$270.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4858140 — net $270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages failing to provide HHS compliance statement	$250.00	Exemplary damages failing to provide HHS compliance statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$270.44

Reasons

[The landlord’s representatives] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by [The tenant’s support person]. The Tribunal also heard from [The tenant's partner].
The tenant’s claims are that the landlord failed to provide the oven in a reasonably clean condition, did not supply a statement of compliance or statement of intent regarding the Healthy Homes Standards along with the tenancy agreement, and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the landlords other tenants did not interfere with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
The tenancy commenced on 10 September 2023 and was for a fixed term to end on 24 February 2024 after which the tenancy was periodic. The property has two stories, three bedrooms, an ensuite bathroom, and a main bathroom upstairs, and a bedroom and bathroom on the ground floor. The ground floor also contains an open plan kitchen / dining / living area. The landlord rents the property by room, with individual tenancy arrangements for each occupant. The tenants have access to a specified bathrooms and share the kitchen / dining / living areas, and laundry. Though not an issue in this case, I am satisfied that this is not a boarding house residential tenancy.
The tenant’s bedroom is upstairs, alongside two other bedrooms upstairs occupied by tenant [A], which included a couple and their 10-year-old daughter. Interference
Under section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”), a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood.
Under section 45 (1)(e) of the Act, a landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
In Hine v Housing New Zealand Corporation, Tenancy Tribunal Auckland, 09/3053/AK, 8 September 2009 the Tribunal stated at paragraph [4]: Under this section the Tribunal has to balance the competing rights of at least two tenants. The Tribunal must consider two sub–issues: first, whether there has been an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant, and secondly, whether the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that there has been no such interference to the tenant.
The learned authors of Grinlinton: Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice (4th ed) state: “In both elements the objective reasonableness test is the measure of compliance”.
The onus of proving the claim rests with the tenant, and the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities.
On or about 03 January 2024, the landlord state they received a complaint from tenant [A] alleging that [The tenant's partner] was staying at the property in breach of their tenancy agreement, which allowed for only one occupant. The complaint also raised concerns about excessive noise occurring when the tenant returned home late from work late at night, showered, and conversations between [The tenant's partner] and the tenant in the tenant’s bedroom after midnight. The complaint appears to have been passed onto the tenant.
On 04 January 2024, the tenant sent several of electronic messages to the landlord denying any breach and stating that tenant [A] had unreasonable expectations regarding quietness. The tenant states that tenant [A] (male) had banged on the wall between the rooms numerous times. This information was not however provided to the landlord.
On 05 January 2024, [The landlord’s representative 1], on behalf of the landlord suggested that the parties acknowledge their close living conditions and confirmed that while the tenant’s partner could visit the address, he was not permitted to reside there.
No other matters were raised with the landlord by either party until 10 March 2024.
On 10 March 2024, the tenant reported that tenant [A] (female) had attempted to enter the tenant’s room and film the tenant while accusing them of leaving shoes under the dining room table. The tenant sent an electronic message and then called [The landlord’s representative 1]. [The landlord’s representatives] visited the property speaking firstly with tenant [A], and then the tenant. [The landlord’s representative 2] states both provided conflicting accounts. [The landlord’s representative 2] states that he reminded both parties of their obligations. [The landlord’s representative 2] states as the tenant was on a periodic tenancy, and tenant [A] on a fixed term, he suggested that if the tenant felt the property was no longer suitable that they should consider giving notice.
The tenant denied that the landlord spoke with tenant [A] and believed the landlord had prejudged the matter.
Later that day the tenant gave 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on 07 April 2024. Thereafter the tenant states they felt uncomfortable being around the other tenant [A] and only returned to the property to sleep at night.
No other incidents were reported by either party until 27 March 2024.
The tenant states around 9.30 am on the morning of 27 March 2024, while in the kitchen, they were confronted by the tenant [A] (male) who shouted and threatened them for 10 minutes, warning that if they saw the tenant’s partner at the property again “something would happen”. The tenant states they were confused by the confrontation having not any contact with either tenant [ A] since 10 March 2024. [The landlord’s representative 2] states that the landlord had been advised by tenant [A] that [The tenant's partner] had made threats concerning gangs. If this had been the case the tenant was unaware. The tenant states they went into the other bedroom downstairs and called [The landlord’s representative 1] advising of what had occurred and that they intended calling police. The tenant states that the landlord said they would not attend and that it was a police matter. The tenant states that they called police and made a complaint. The tenant states that they then called [The tenant's partner], who left his work and travelled to the property. At 12.45 pm the tenant sent the landlord an electronic message advising that they had vacated the property.
The police did not attend on the day. On 28 March 2024, police accompanied the tenant back to the property and remained present while the tenant retrieved their possessions. Police spoke with both tenant [A] (male and female). Tenant [A] (male) admitted confronting the tenant, expressing concern at the behaviour of [The tenant's partner] while at the property, citing that he had been walking around shirtless in front of their daughter which they felt was inappropriate, but denied any threats. Tenant [A] (male) version of events was corroborated by tenant [A] (female). No further action was taken. The Police job sheet suggests police encouraged the parties to sought out any issues with the landlord. On 12 August 2024, the job sheet appears to have been updated with police recording that they had issued tenant [A] (male) with a “verbal warning”. In the job sheet the police record there was a “heavy” language barrier and that a translator service had to be used.
The landlord states that they received the call on 27 March 2024, and believed that the tenant had already contacted police. On that basis, they believed that initially it was a police matter. [The landlord’s representative 1] states that she visited the address between 10am and 11am and spoke with the tenant in the garage. The tenant denies this visit occurred. [The tenant's partner] states that he left work and collected the tenant from outside the property sometime between 9am and 10am. When asked about what had been discussed while at the property [The landlord’s representative 1] could not recall and appeared vague. I have some doubt that [The landlord’s representative 1] visited the property on 27 March 2024. There is no dispute that the landlord did however attend the property on 28 March 2024, conducted a tenancy inspection, after which the tenant’s full bond was refunded.
On 02 April 2024, the tenant sought a refund of the rent paid from 27 March 2024 to 07 April 2024. On 06 April 2024, the landlord replied asking the tenant to provide evidence from police that they had to move for safety reasons. The tenant stated that the incident number provided on 27 March 2024 was sufficient. Discussion
The issue in this case is whether: (i)There has been an interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy by tenant [A], and (ii)Objectively assessed, has the landlord taken all reasonable steps to ensure this interference did not continue to occur.
Both limbs must be proved on the balance of probabilities.
The January 2024 message exchange arose from an allegation that it was the tenant and [The tenant's partner] who were interfering with the reasonable peace and comfort of tenant [A]. Although tenant [A]’s repeatedly banging on the wall and shouting at the tenant to be quiet may have arguably been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy, this was not reported to the landlord.
Based on what they knew, having spoken to each party, reminding them of their respective obligations, I am satisfied their response on 10 March 2024 was reasonable.
Nothing further was reported until 27 March 2024.
Once advised that tenant had involved the police and were moving from the property that day, it is unclear what else the landlord could have done. The tenant argues that earlier intervention by the landlord could have prevented the incident. The difficulty with this submission is the undisputed fact that any ongoing behaviour by tenant [A], that may have amounted to an interference had not been reported to the landlord.
In conclusion while the tenant [A] has likely interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, on the evidence produced, I am not satisfied that the landlord has necessarily failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent or stop an interference occurring. The claim is dismissed. Oven
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act by failing to provide the oven in a reasonably clean condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant and [The tenant's partner] both state that the oven was not provided in a reasonably clean condition at the commencement of the tenancy. They also state that if called upon the other tenants at the property could confirm this. However, no statements from these witnesses have been provided. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this matter was raised prior to the tenant’s application filed on 10 April 2024, nor have any photographs been provided on which to conduct an objectively assess the condition. The landlord has provided a pre tenancy checklist signed by the parties, confirming that the oven was accepted as being in a in reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. As stated, the onus is on the tenant to establish the claim. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Healthy Homes Statement
From 01 December 2020, pursuant to section 13(1CA) of the Act the landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: (a) That, on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) as required by section 45(1) (bb). and (b) Including any information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B (5), which relate to heating, insulation, moisture ingress, draught stopping and drainage.
Failing the comply with section 13(1CA) of the Act is an unlawful act for which under section 13(1F) (a) and Schedule 1A exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to provide this information to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord claims they were overseas at the time, and that their agent did not provide a copy of the tenancy agreement or compliance statement to the tenant. Upon the landlord’s return, the issue remained unresolved, and a copy of the agreement and compliance statement was only provided after the tenancy ended. This is a breach of the provisions and unlawful act.
Given the significant publicity around HHS, it is presumed that landlords are aware of their obligations. Compliance with HHS provisions is in the interests of both parties and the public. The tenant states they were not aware that the did not have an agreement or compliance statement until they filed their application on 10 April 2024. There is no evidence that the breach had a significant impact on the tenant. Considering these factors, I am satisfied that an award of $250.00 exemplary is appropriate. Costs
As the tenant has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
Neither [The tenant’s support person] or [The tenant's partner] are party to these proceedings, and their names are suppressed. The tenant states that they fear repercussions by tenant [A]. There is insufficient evidence that these fears are necessarily warranted. However, having seen and heard from the tenant, and upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds relating to the emotional health and wellbeing of the tenant to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4858140 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4858140 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions