How much money was awarded in case 4881740?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: broadband termination…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: electricity terminatio…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Moving Cost - Hireace: $122.89 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Storage Costs: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Termination: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4881740?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4881740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11261257-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4881740?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: broadband termination…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: electricity terminatio…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Moving Cost - Hireace: $122.89 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Storage Costs: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Termination: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4881740?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4881740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11261257-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4881740 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4881740 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4881740 — net $3,883.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Balance of bond held by landlord	$240.00	Balance of bond held by landlord
Compensation: moving cost - Hireace	$122.89	moving cost - Hireace
Compensation: electricity termination fee	$200.00	electricity termination fee
Compensation: broadband termination fee	$250.00	broadband termination fee
Compensation: storage costs	$250.00	storage costs
Compensation: termination	$800.00	termination
Compensation: unlawful entry	$100.00	unlawful entry
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: repairs/maintenance	$400.00	repairs/maintenance
Exemplary damages: smoke alarms	$1,000.00	smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,883.33
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,883.33

Only the [The tenant/s] attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the landlord, Ms Miller, at the scheduled time. The start of the hearing was delayed, but the landlord still did not appear. Being satisfied that the landlord had been notified, the hearing proceeded.

This is the second hearing concerning these two applications. Following the first hearing, the Tribunal considered the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. As explained in the , the parties entered into an agreement titled “Flat/house sharing agreement.” The respondent, Ms Miller, is described in this agreement as the head tenant. The applicant’s name is not recorded, but it is stated that the agreement is between the head tenant and flatmate.

After considering the nature of the arrangement between the parties, including the evidence and relevant law, jurisdiction to determine the dispute was confirmed, since the Tribunal found this was a residential tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). It was also found that this was not a boarding house tenancy.

This tenancy commenced on 18 August 2023 and ended on 14 April 2024. The rent is $210.00 per week and a bond of $840.00 was paid. The applications

The tenant has applied to the Tribunal seeking the balance of the bond, and compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA. This is application number 4881740.

The applicant has received $600.00 from the bond, and seeks the remaining balance of $240.00, which is still held by the landlord.

The tenant also claims as follows: • Unlawful termination • Unlawful entry by the landlord • Failure to give proper notice of property inspection by the landlord’s agent • Discrimination • Breach of quiet enjoyment • Breach of privacy • Breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) – no heating, insulation, gaps in windows • Smoke alarms not installed

The landlord has filed a cross application (5008508). The landlord recorded that she wished to be heard, and did not want to interact further with the tenant. Legal framework

In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. The Tribunal is one of the few jurisdictions that can award exemplary damages. It does not do so lightly. Tenant’s application: 4881740 The bond

The bond is money paid under a tenancy agreement as security for the performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA. 1 The bond is the tenant’s money. Section 22B(2) of the RTA provides that, 1 Section 2(1) definition of “bond” where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.

In this case, while the landlord has filed a counterclaim, the landlord did not attend the hearing. Furthermore, the basis for retaining the bond is unclear. I also note the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. In these circumstances, the tenant is entitled to the return of the balance of the bond withheld by the landlord, which is awarded above. Notice to terminate the tenancy

The tenant has provided evidence to show that the landlord gave a 14 day notice to end the tenancy, on 21 March 2024. This notice was sent via email, and stated the reason was because of the tenant’s “inability to keep the house in a good standard of cleanliness.” The tenant was required to vacate by 4 April 2024, and was informed that if he remained in the property on 5 April 2024, a trespass notice would be handed to him by the police.

The tenant’s evidence is that he was not prepared to move out by the date given, and asked for a further two weeks. The landlord then called the police, and handed him a trespass notice, with police in attendance. There were discussions involving the tenant and landlord, in the presence of the police. The tenant managed to negotiate a further week, vacating the premises on 14 April 2024.

The tenant also said in evidence that the landlord threw out some of his belongings from the bedroom. He was locked out of the premises on 7 April 2024, around 9.30am. A friend came with him for support. The landlord took his keys off him, and also had his car keys. He and the landlord called the police, and after the police attended, his keys were returned. He was locked out until 3.30pm.

The tenant seeks compensation for the additional costs incurred as a result of the landlord’s notice ending the tenancy, which is claimed to be unlawful. This includes moving costs, storage costs, and early termination fees paid to electricity and broadband providers.

Under the RTA, where a landlord wishes to end a periodic tenancy, they must provide their reasons for doing so, and the notice period depends on the reasons for ending the tenancy. The RTA sets out various ways a tenancy can be ended, with 90 days notice or 63 days notice being required, depending on the circumstances. In limited situations, such as physical assault by the tenant, 14 days notice can be given.

Under Section 60AA of the RTA 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 $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

In this case, I find the landlord’s notice ending the tenancy did not comply with the requirements under the RTA, since the landlord has not given valid reasons for ending it. A landlord cannot end a tenancy because they are dissatisfied with the tenant’s standard of cleanliness. Furthermore, the notice period is well short of the expected timeframes, of either 90 days or 63 days. There is no evidence that the requirements are met for the landlord to end the tenancy in 14 days for physical assault. The Tribunal has found earlier that this is not a boarding house tenancy and therefore, the notice provisions for a boarding house will not apply. In any event, a boarding house landlord normally needs to give 28 days’ notice to end a boarding house tenancy.

Accordingly, having found the notice is unlawful, the tenant is to be compensated for the actual costs incurred for moving and storage, and the early termination fees. While some of these costs may ordinarily be incurred at the end of a tenancy, as the tenant has explained, if given proper notice, he could have planned his moving to minimise these costs, and would not have incurred the additional early termination fees (electricity and broadband). Therefore, these costs are awarded above.

As it is unclear whether the landlord knew the notice to end the tenancy was unlawful, and deliberately set out to commit the unlawful act, exemplary damages are not awarded. However, the tenant is to be compensated for the overall effect of the landlord’s actions. The landlord called the police and handed the tenant a trespass notice, a copy of which has been provided. The landlord locked the tenant out of the premises, threw out some of his belongings, and took his car keys. The landlord’s actions resulted in distress for the tenant. In view of the circumstances, the tenant is to be compensated in the amount of $800.00 for the overall effect of the landlord’s breach under the RTA. Unlawful entry and failure to give proper notice of inspection

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. He says there were instances where the landlord would be inside the house, carrying out work without permission. He had no proper notice of a property inspection carried out by Ms Kate Ipsen. He received notice, via email on 11 March 2024, from the landlord, which was only one day before the inspection, rather than the required 48 hours.

Under section 48 of the RTA, a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. 2 If a landlord enters the premises in contravention of section 48, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded (up to a maximum of $1,500.00: section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA). The landlord may conduct inspections of the premises, but must ensure that when doing so, proper notice is given (at least 48 hours and not more than 14 days in advance).

In terms of the landlord being onsite working inside the premises, few details of the events have been provided, although I accept the tenant’s evidence that this has occurred during the tenancy. I am satisfied the tenant has established that he did not receive proper notice of the property inspection carried out by Ms Ipsen in March 2024. In view of the circumstances, I find the tenant is to be compensated in the amount of $100.00.

There is insufficient evidence regarding the landlord’s intent to make an award of exemplary damages. Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenant claims the landlord breached his privacy by approaching his employer and telling him that he was illegally living in the property. He also claims his privacy was breached following the property inspection conducted in March 2024 without his consent, where the property manager took photographs of his personal belongings. He found comments made by the property manager in an email following it to be offensive. He claims breaches under the Privacy Act 2020 and the Human Rights Act 1993.

Section 38(1) of the RTA states that the tenant is entitled to have “quiet enjoyment” of the premises without interruption by the landlord or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf. This provision imposes a limited duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises. 3 Section 38(2) of the RTA further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 4 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of 2 See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA 3 ‘Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice’ 4 th edition, D. Grinlinton (2012) 4 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.

Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person." 5

Under Section 38(2) there is reference to the privacy of the tenant and the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that this is not interfered with. In the case of Thompson-Huntley v KJP Investments Limited 6 the Tribunal noted that the right to privacy under the RTA does not directly correspond to the right to privacy under the Privacy Act. The purpose of the section is to ensure tenants are free from unwarranted or undue intrusion or disturbance in their private lives while living at the tenancy premises. In Tenant v Todd 7 , while noting the observations in Thompson-Huntley v KJP Investments Limited (above), stated that the Privacy Act 2020 can sometimes provide useful practical guidance in considering claims involving personal information under section 38(2) of the RTA.

In this case, I find there is insufficient evidence to make findings regarding the claim that the landlord harmed the tenant’s reputation at work by contacting his employer, and that he suffered financial loss (cancellation of a pay rise). The tenant has explained that he is unable to provide the email evidence concerning this.

However, I am satisfied there has been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment resulting from the landlord’s communication regarding the standard of cleanliness of the premises, and the landlord carrying out repair work inside the premises without notifying the tenant. Taking into account the nature of the breach, duration, and its effect on the tenant, he is to be compensated in the amount of $500.00. Discrimination

The tenant claims the landlord discriminated against him on the basis that the landlord found reasons to end his tenancy because he was not agreeable to the landlord entering the property (unlike the other tenants). The tenant also referred to comments made by the property inspector, Ms Ipsen, which he found to be biased. 5 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 6 [2021] NZTT Waitakere 4260498 7 [2022] NZTT 4319171

A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) of the RTA. Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

While I note the concerns expressed by the tenant, and his views as to the landlord’s motivation, overall, I find he has not established, with sufficient evidence, that the landlord has breached section 12 of the RTA. So, this claim is dismissed. Repair and maintenance

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached obligations under section 45 of the RTA. Under section 45, a landlord must: provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 8 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 9 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.

The tenant’s evidence is that there were holes in the house, with the floors being unfinished, electrical wires hanging, light fittings not functioning, and gaps in the 8 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 9 Section 40(1)(d) windows. He has provided photographic and documentary evidence. While aware at the start of the tenancy that remedial work was needed, he was told this was only temporary, since the house was undergoing renovation. He was also informed that it would be fixed, as soon as possible, and that the landlord was working on it. He was not given any timeframes, but he had expected it would be done in a few months. By the end of the tenancy, the work remained unfinished.

The tenant has provided an email dated 24 March 2024 which records the various problems. He has described the floors being ripped, with visible tears and damage to flooring, a broken entrance light, gap in the sliding door, ceiling damage, temporary repairs to the wooden floor, damaged wooden corner near the sliding door, exposed wire and visible holes in the house.

Overall, I am satisfied the tenant has established that the landlord is in breach of the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. In terms of the claim for compensation under this category, while no specific loss has been shown, the inconvenience and loss of amenity are relevant factors. In this case, taking into account the nature of the breach, duration, the effect on the tenant, I consider an award of $400.00 to be reasonable.

There is insufficient evidence regarding the landlord’s intent to make an award of exemplary damages. Smoke alarms

Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA requires that a landlord must comply with all requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Smoke alarms must meet qualifying standards and be installed in certain locations. This includes the requirement that a smoke alarm be installed in the sleeping space or within three metres of the entrance to the sleeping space. Breaching the obligation in s 45(1)(ba) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 (see s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA).

The tenant’s evidence is that there are no smoke alarms throughout the house. He has provided photographic and oral evidence in support.

In this instance, I find it appropriate to award exemplary damages, because landlords have had a legal duty, since July 2016, to have compliant smoke alarms fitted in tenanted premises. Taking into account the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA, noting there were no smoke alarms in the premises for the duration of this tenancy, and the seriousness of failing to install compliant smoke alarms, I consider it appropriate to award exemplary damages of $1,000.00. Insulation

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

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. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

In this case, the tenant’s evidence is that he felt the house lacked insulation as it was hot in the summer and cold in the winter. However, as there is a lack of persuasive evidence in support, this claim is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards

[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). Specifically, the tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping and heating standards.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: • 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.

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.

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. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

In terms of the draught stopping standards, the tenant has noted various issues, including gaps in the windows. Apart from photographs, the evidence with reference to the HHS draught stopping standard is limited. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

In terms of the heating standard, again, the tenant’s evidence is limited and so, it has not been proven to the required standard. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Landlord’s application: 5008508

The landlord did not attend the hearing. Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression

Because the tenant has been substantially successful, the landlord is to pay the tenant’s filing fee.

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenant. In view of the tenant being substantially successful in the proceedings, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4881740 — net $3,883.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Balance of bond held by landlord	$240.00	Balance of bond held by landlord
Compensation: moving cost - Hireace	$122.89	moving cost - Hireace
Compensation: electricity termination fee	$200.00	electricity termination fee
Compensation: broadband termination fee	$250.00	broadband termination fee
Compensation: storage costs	$250.00	storage costs
Compensation: termination	$800.00	termination
Compensation: unlawful entry	$100.00	unlawful entry
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: repairs/maintenance	$400.00	repairs/maintenance
Exemplary damages: smoke alarms	$1,000.00	smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,883.33
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,883.33