What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4864822 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 4864822?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864822?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10661938-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4864822 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 4864822?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864822?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10661938-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4864822 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4864822 — net $740.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards - ventilation	$720.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards - ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	61. [The tenant/s] has been partially successful in this application.
Net award	$740.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$740.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

This was a service tenancy. The landlord, Kandle Agri Ltd, is a sharemilking business operating on a farm on [Tenancy address suppressed].
Part of the sharemilking arrangement with the owner of the farm included the use of several dwellings on the farm to house Kandle Agri’s workers.
Kandle Agri hired [The tenant/s] to work as a [redacted].
The employment contract, and the tenancy, began in late November 2023 and was for a fixed six-month term, coinciding with the milking season.
Kandle Agri provided [The tenant/s] with a written service tenancy agreement.
The tenancy ended with the end of [The tenant/s] employment, in late May 2024.
[The tenant/s] application seeks a refund of all the rent paid during the tenancy, on the grounds that the premises were “uninhabitable”.
The hearing took place on 1 August 2024. [The tenant/s] attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Mr & Mrs Errington (the directors and shareholders of Kandle Agri Ltd) attended in person. “Uninhabitable” premises
[The tenant/s] said that during a property inspection Ms Errington admitted to her that the premises were uninhabitable.
The basis of [The tenant/s] application is that she should not have been housed, and required to pay rent, in an uninhabitable house.
Mrs Errington said that [The tenant/s] has misunderstood a comment that she made. Ms Errington said that: a. The premises require some work, and this was known from the start of the tenancy. b. The owner’s intent was to start with renovating the kitchen. A builder came to the property in January 2024 and gave a quote to do the job, but then could not be contacted. c. Sometime after that, the owner visited the property and decided that the scope of work required was such that it could only be done with the property vacant. Therefore, the owner decided to end [The tenant/s] tenancy at the end of the fixed term, and not to put anyone else in there. d. Her comment to [The tenant/s] was that the premises would be uninhabitable when that renovation work began. e. The work began after [The tenant/s] moved out, and the premises have been gutted.
[The tenant/s] argument that she is entitled to a refund of the rent if the premises are uninhabitable does not align with the principles and language of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The RTA uses the word “uninhabitable” in one context only – where the tenanted premises are destroyed or are very badly damaged during the tenancy, to the extent that they become uninhabitable. If that happens, the obligation to pay rent ends, and either the landlord or the tenant can end the tenancy on short notice 1 .
The RTA states that the tenant is entitled to a refund of rent if the premises are “unlawful” 2 . Unlawful premises are premises that cannot be lawfully occupied. This may be because the premises were not consented for residential use by the local authority. An example could be a barn or garage that has been converted to a dwelling without consent.
These premises were not destroyed or badly damaged during [The tenant/s] tenancy. They are not unlawful residential premises.
They were also not uninhabitable in the ordinary meaning of that word. [The tenant/s] lived in the house for several months.
This part of [The tenant/s] claim cannot succeed. However, Kandle Agri did have other legal duties in respect of the premises. They were obliged to meet the healthy homes standards. They were obliged to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Healthy homes standards
Landlords must meet the healthy homes standards 3 .
A breach of this duty is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
The healthy homes standards impose requirements in respect of: a. Insulation. b. Heating. c. Ventilation. d. Draught stopping. e. Moisture ingress and drainage.
The timeframe for compliance for this tenancy was 120 days from the commencement date.
[The tenant/s] raised issues in respect of ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress. Ventilation 1 Sections 59 and 59A RTA 2 Section 78A RTA 3 Section 45(1)(bb)
Tenanted properties must have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen and bedrooms, and must have extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
It is not disputed that there was no extractor fan in the bathroom during [The tenant/s] tenancy.
It is not disputed that there was no working extractor fan in the kitchen.
Therefore I find that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard in respect of ventilation. Insulation
Tenanted premises must have compliant ceiling and underfloor insulation.
[The tenant/s] said that there is no insulation at all in the property. She said that she could see the ground through a hole in the toilet floor.
Mr & Mrs Errington said that the property has ceiling and underfloor insulation and also a moisture barrier.
The provided a photograph of underneath the house, which shows underfloor insulation in place, and a moisture barrier. They provided a photograph of the roof space which shows ceiling insulation.
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof.
The evidence provided to me does not show that the landlord failed to meet its obligations in respect of insulation. Draught stopping
Tenanted premises must not have “unreasonable gaps” in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, or doors, which cause “noticeable draughts”.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. She could not close the window in the lounge. b. There was a hole in the toilet floor.
[The tenant/s] provided a photograph of the window in the lounge. She did not provide a photograph of the toilet floor.
Mr & Mrs Errington said that: a. The lounge window can be closed, and they closed it without difficulty after [The tenant/s] moved out. b. There are no holes in the toilet floor.
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof.
It is difficult for [The tenant/s] to prove that the lounge window could not be closed. The only information available to me about this is [The tenant/s] statement that it could not be closed and Mr & Mrs Errington’s statement that it could. The photograph does not assist with answering this question.
I must therefore find that it is not proven that the lounge window could not be closed.
It is also not proven that there was a hole in the toilet floor.
There is no proven breach of the draught stopping standard. Moisture ingress
[The tenant/s] said that the house was very damp, and that this caused her problems because she suffers from asthma.
Broad concerns about dampness, in the absence of a specific leak or drainage problem, are difficult to evidence.
[The tenant/s] provided a photograph showing mould on the ceiling in the lounge.
This is an older wooden house, and it is difficult to entirely eliminate mould in older houses in the [Region] area.
The evidence provided does not establish that the property suffers from a systemic stormwater drainage or leak issue. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s] has proven that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards in respect of ventilation. This is an unlawful act.
In considering an award of exemplary damages for an unlawful act, the Tenancy Tribunal must have regard to 4 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act has been committed; and d. The public interest.
The maximum award of exemplary damages for a landlord failing to meet the healthy homes standards is $7,200.00.
In this instance: 4 Section 109 RTA a. The only proven breach is in respect of ventilation. b. The tenancy was of short duration. c. The landlord was aware that the rangehood did not work and that there was no extractor fan in the bathroom. d. The landlord took some steps to install kitchen ventilation (it was supposed to be part of the kitchen renovation work that was quoted in January 2024) but assumed a risk that it would not be completed within the 120-day compliance period. e. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their duty to supply warm, dry, and healthy homes. Service tenancies should not be treated differently than any other tenancy.
Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $720.00. General issues
[The tenant/s] said that: a. There was a rat infestation in the ceiling of the house. b. There were holes in the wall in the lounge and toilet.
This is an older style house in a rural environment. There will be rats and mice in and around the house. Control of pests is a shared responsibility between landlords and tenants. Tenants must take reasonable steps such as putting down bait / traps. If there is a problem that cannot be controlled by those reasonable steps, the landlord must take action such as arranging for professional pest control.
Again, the extent of a pest problem can be difficult to evidence.
I note that the landlord’s photograph of the ceiling space, showing the insulation, does not show any signs of a significant rat infestation.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs showing a hole at the bottom of the wall in the lounge and one at the bottom of the wall in the bathroom.
Mr & Mrs Errington said that the hole at the bottom of the wall in the lounge is due to a historic water leak. The hole at the bottom of the toilet wall is new, and [The tenant/s] did not let them know about it.
Landlords must provide the premises in a “reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises” 5 . 5 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
My finding is that the relatively minor damage that the landlords were aware of (which includes a cracked pane in the window in the lounge) is consistent with the “age and character of the premises”.
There is no proven breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in this application. I will award [The tenant/s] the filing fee 6 , and grant her request for name suppression 7 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4864822 — net $740.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards - ventilation	$720.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards - ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	61. [The tenant/s] has been partially successful in this application.
Net award	$740.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$740.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

This was a service tenancy. The landlord, Kandle Agri Ltd, is a sharemilking business operating on a farm on [Tenancy address suppressed].
Part of the sharemilking arrangement with the owner of the farm included the use of several dwellings on the farm to house Kandle Agri’s workers.
Kandle Agri hired [The tenant/s] to work as a [redacted].
The employment contract, and the tenancy, began in late November 2023 and was for a fixed six-month term, coinciding with the milking season.
Kandle Agri provided [The tenant/s] with a written service tenancy agreement.
The tenancy ended with the end of [The tenant/s] employment, in late May 2024.
[The tenant/s] application seeks a refund of all the rent paid during the tenancy, on the grounds that the premises were “uninhabitable”.
The hearing took place on 1 August 2024. [The tenant/s] attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Mr & Mrs Errington (the directors and shareholders of Kandle Agri Ltd) attended in person. “Uninhabitable” premises
[The tenant/s] said that during a property inspection Ms Errington admitted to her that the premises were uninhabitable.
The basis of [The tenant/s] application is that she should not have been housed, and required to pay rent, in an uninhabitable house.
Mrs Errington said that [The tenant/s] has misunderstood a comment that she made. Ms Errington said that: a. The premises require some work, and this was known from the start of the tenancy. b. The owner’s intent was to start with renovating the kitchen. A builder came to the property in January 2024 and gave a quote to do the job, but then could not be contacted. c. Sometime after that, the owner visited the property and decided that the scope of work required was such that it could only be done with the property vacant. Therefore, the owner decided to end [The tenant/s] tenancy at the end of the fixed term, and not to put anyone else in there. d. Her comment to [The tenant/s] was that the premises would be uninhabitable when that renovation work began. e. The work began after [The tenant/s] moved out, and the premises have been gutted.
[The tenant/s] argument that she is entitled to a refund of the rent if the premises are uninhabitable does not align with the principles and language of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The RTA uses the word “uninhabitable” in one context only – where the tenanted premises are destroyed or are very badly damaged during the tenancy, to the extent that they become uninhabitable. If that happens, the obligation to pay rent ends, and either the landlord or the tenant can end the tenancy on short notice 1 .
The RTA states that the tenant is entitled to a refund of rent if the premises are “unlawful” 2 . Unlawful premises are premises that cannot be lawfully occupied. This may be because the premises were not consented for residential use by the local authority. An example could be a barn or garage that has been converted to a dwelling without consent.
These premises were not destroyed or badly damaged during [The tenant/s] tenancy. They are not unlawful residential premises.
They were also not uninhabitable in the ordinary meaning of that word. [The tenant/s] lived in the house for several months.
This part of [The tenant/s] claim cannot succeed. However, Kandle Agri did have other legal duties in respect of the premises. They were obliged to meet the healthy homes standards. They were obliged to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Healthy homes standards
Landlords must meet the healthy homes standards 3 .
A breach of this duty is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can apply.
The healthy homes standards impose requirements in respect of: a. Insulation. b. Heating. c. Ventilation. d. Draught stopping. e. Moisture ingress and drainage.
The timeframe for compliance for this tenancy was 120 days from the commencement date.
[The tenant/s] raised issues in respect of ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress. Ventilation 1 Sections 59 and 59A RTA 2 Section 78A RTA 3 Section 45(1)(bb)
Tenanted properties must have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen and bedrooms, and must have extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
It is not disputed that there was no extractor fan in the bathroom during [The tenant/s] tenancy.
It is not disputed that there was no working extractor fan in the kitchen.
Therefore I find that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standard in respect of ventilation. Insulation
Tenanted premises must have compliant ceiling and underfloor insulation.
[The tenant/s] said that there is no insulation at all in the property. She said that she could see the ground through a hole in the toilet floor.
Mr & Mrs Errington said that the property has ceiling and underfloor insulation and also a moisture barrier.
The provided a photograph of underneath the house, which shows underfloor insulation in place, and a moisture barrier. They provided a photograph of the roof space which shows ceiling insulation.
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof.
The evidence provided to me does not show that the landlord failed to meet its obligations in respect of insulation. Draught stopping
Tenanted premises must not have “unreasonable gaps” in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, or doors, which cause “noticeable draughts”.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. She could not close the window in the lounge. b. There was a hole in the toilet floor.
[The tenant/s] provided a photograph of the window in the lounge. She did not provide a photograph of the toilet floor.
Mr & Mrs Errington said that: a. The lounge window can be closed, and they closed it without difficulty after [The tenant/s] moved out. b. There are no holes in the toilet floor.
[The tenant/s] has the burden of proof.
It is difficult for [The tenant/s] to prove that the lounge window could not be closed. The only information available to me about this is [The tenant/s] statement that it could not be closed and Mr & Mrs Errington’s statement that it could. The photograph does not assist with answering this question.
I must therefore find that it is not proven that the lounge window could not be closed.
It is also not proven that there was a hole in the toilet floor.
There is no proven breach of the draught stopping standard. Moisture ingress
[The tenant/s] said that the house was very damp, and that this caused her problems because she suffers from asthma.
Broad concerns about dampness, in the absence of a specific leak or drainage problem, are difficult to evidence.
[The tenant/s] provided a photograph showing mould on the ceiling in the lounge.
This is an older wooden house, and it is difficult to entirely eliminate mould in older houses in the [Region] area.
The evidence provided does not establish that the property suffers from a systemic stormwater drainage or leak issue. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s] has proven that the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards in respect of ventilation. This is an unlawful act.
In considering an award of exemplary damages for an unlawful act, the Tenancy Tribunal must have regard to 4 : a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act has been committed; and d. The public interest.
The maximum award of exemplary damages for a landlord failing to meet the healthy homes standards is $7,200.00.
In this instance: 4 Section 109 RTA a. The only proven breach is in respect of ventilation. b. The tenancy was of short duration. c. The landlord was aware that the rangehood did not work and that there was no extractor fan in the bathroom. d. The landlord took some steps to install kitchen ventilation (it was supposed to be part of the kitchen renovation work that was quoted in January 2024) but assumed a risk that it would not be completed within the 120-day compliance period. e. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their duty to supply warm, dry, and healthy homes. Service tenancies should not be treated differently than any other tenancy.
Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $720.00. General issues
[The tenant/s] said that: a. There was a rat infestation in the ceiling of the house. b. There were holes in the wall in the lounge and toilet.
This is an older style house in a rural environment. There will be rats and mice in and around the house. Control of pests is a shared responsibility between landlords and tenants. Tenants must take reasonable steps such as putting down bait / traps. If there is a problem that cannot be controlled by those reasonable steps, the landlord must take action such as arranging for professional pest control.
Again, the extent of a pest problem can be difficult to evidence.
I note that the landlord’s photograph of the ceiling space, showing the insulation, does not show any signs of a significant rat infestation.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs showing a hole at the bottom of the wall in the lounge and one at the bottom of the wall in the bathroom.
Mr & Mrs Errington said that the hole at the bottom of the wall in the lounge is due to a historic water leak. The hole at the bottom of the toilet wall is new, and [The tenant/s] did not let them know about it.
Landlords must provide the premises in a “reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises” 5 . 5 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
My finding is that the relatively minor damage that the landlords were aware of (which includes a cracked pane in the window in the lounge) is consistent with the “age and character of the premises”.
There is no proven breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in this application. I will award [The tenant/s] the filing fee 6 , and grant her request for name suppression 7 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864822 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864822 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions