What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4885563 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 4885563?

Compensation: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Costs On Reduction Of Fixed Term Ten…: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885563?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4885563 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 4885563?

Compensation: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Costs On Reduction Of Fixed Term Ten…: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885563?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20C Siska Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4885563 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885563 — net $5,132.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Costs on reduction of fixed term tenancy	$287.50		Costs on reduction of fixed term tenancy
Compensation – loss of utility and quiet enjoyment		$5,400.00	Compensation – loss of utility and quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$287.50	$5,420.44
Net award		$5,132.94
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,132.94

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885563 — net $5,132.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Costs on reduction of fixed term tenancy	$287.50		Costs on reduction of fixed term tenancy
Compensation – loss of utility and quiet enjoyment		$5,400.00	Compensation – loss of utility and quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$287.50	$5,420.44
Net award		$5,132.94
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,132.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Harcourts Group Limited as agent for Jing Chen and Jing Chen must pay [The tenant/s] $5,132.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
By consent the tenancy will terminate on 29 November 2024 and possession is granted to Harcourts Group Limited as agent for Jing Chen and Jing Chen at
59pm on Friday 29 November 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ross represented the landlord together with the owner Jing Chen
The tenants have applied for compensation for breaches of their quiet enjoyment of the tenancy; exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS); and a reduction of their fixed term tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on 1 December 2023 and is a fixed term tenancy to 15 January 2025.
There are eight tenants, each with their own bedroom. Two of the tenants work full time; six are full time students all in their final year of study.
In 2022 and 2023, during earlier tenancies, the roof leaked on separate occasions. Repairs were done and seemed to fix the problem. However, the landlord received advice that the roof probably needed replacing.
After this tenancy started, the landlord decided to proceed with the repair work. She engaged contractors and project managed the repair work herself, diligently it seems.
The repairs took longer than expected, as they often do. There were various reasons for the delay, but none is directly relevant to the issues in dispute, other than the decision to extend the work to include the replacement of part of the exterior cladding also.
The work started on 12 April 2024 when the scaffolding was put in place and lasted until 20 June 2024, when it was taken down.
During that time there was a lot of communication between the parties about the disruption the tenants were experiencing.
The parties tried to resolve the dispute between themselves, but they were very far apart in what they considered appropriate compensation should be.
The tenants have sued for $32,625.00 being a 75% rent rebate (the rent is $1,800.00 per week). The landlord offered compensation of $1,900.00.
The landlord has reimbursed some increased power costs and a parking fine due to one of the tenants having to park on the street in a restricted area.
In evidence today, the tenants confirmed that they were not seeking separate compensation for increased power costs or other parking fines; their claim was for general compensation, in other words, an award on a global basis for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
Their application has raised other issues which I detail further on.
Seven of the tenants attended the hearing today and all gave brief evidence. One tenant spoke to written submissions.
Ms Ross made submissions for the landlord. The owner gave oral evidence.
Both parties have provided documentary evidence. I have considered all the evidence put before the Tribunal, both documentary and oral, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
The issues before the Tribunal are these: •Have the tenants proved breaches of their quiet enjoyment for which they should be awarded compensation? •Have the tenants proved that the premises were not compliant with the HHS and if so, should they be awarded exemplary damages? •Should the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced?
In addition, though not part of the application before the Tribunal, the parties agreed that I should decide whether the landlord is entitled to ‘break lease’ costs. Law
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider 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 to deter. They are 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Birch the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
Section 66 RTA states in part: 66 Reduction or termination of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced. (2) Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. Discussion Have the tenants proved breaches of their quiet enjoyment for which they should be awarded compensation?
This is not a situation where the landlord had to undertake urgent repairs and maintenance. The leaking through the roof occurred during previous tenancies. The tenant confirmed that the roof did not leak at all during their tenancy before it was replaced.
The landlord said she decided to do the work after much thought to ensure that there would be no future leaks which she felt was important to ensure continuing HHS compliance.
This was work that could have been done between tenancies. By electing to do it while tenants were residing at the premises, the landlord left herself open to a claim for compensation for loss of use and quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
Had the tenants known that this work was to be done, they might not have opted to take up the tenancy, or they might have negotiated different terms.
The landlord accepts that the tenants were inconvenienced by the work. She offered what she considered to be reasonable compensation, but the tenants rejected that.
The tenants’ expectation that they might be awarded a rent rebate of 75% is unrealistic. I explained why that was today.
Rent can only abate when premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged, as to become uninhabitable, in whole or in part. That was not the case here.
When the Tribunal (and the District Court) considered cases of uninhabitability after the Christchurch earthquakes, the amounts awarded by way of abatement of rent were limited both in duration and amount.
The tenants confirmed that they could continue to use their bedrooms. Some of them spent some nights away from the premises due to the disruption caused by the building work, but that does not establish uninhabitability.
So, this is a case where the Tribunal can award compensation for the tenants’ loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, but it cannot abate the rent as they seem to expect.
Taking account of the Birch principles, I note the following. •The work (and therefore the disruption) occurred over a period of 3 months. Before then there was no issue with the premises. Since the work has been completed there is also no issue. So, the period of disruption is limited. •The tenants experienced disruption due to builders’ noise, interruptions (including the contractors using their facilities), and visits by the landlord as project manager (though she did not enter the premises). The interruptions would have been the same regardless of who the project manager was. •Especially when the cladding was replaced (a portion of the cladding, not the entire house) the tenants complained that they used more power as the premises were colder. That was for a limited period. •The tenants experienced parking restrictions due to the site being scaffolded and the presence of the contractors. •There was a small hole in the lead light glass in the front door that took quite a time to be repaired. That was due to the replacement glass being difficult to source. •The effect of that delayed repair was, objectively viewed, relatively minor. To say that it ‘created an environment of fear and uncertainty’ seems hyperbole when set against the photographic evidence. •The tenants, most of whom are full time students, required quietness without interruption. That expectation was thwarted by the construction work.
So, what would be appropriate compensation? I have already recorded that the tenants’ expectation is unrealistic. They were inconvenienced in different ways, during a 3-month period, the disruption different at some times than others. They were still able to use the premises. But their quiet enjoyment was affected. They incurred a loss of utility and enjoyment.
The landlord’s offer of compensation of $1,900.00 is also unrealistic. It does not compensate the loss of enjoyment that the tenants have described and have established.
The focus can only be on the 3-month period of the repair/renovation work. Before then, and after, the premises have been used without any loss. The small hole in the lead light glass, now repaired, was a minor matter.
I find that compensation of $5,400.00 is appropriate in this case. If compared to rent it equates to a 25% reduction for the period in question, or $56.25 per tenant per week. That amount properly compensates the tenants for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy they experienced due to the disruption that resulted from what was a significant repair/renovation project – the replacement of the roof and the replacement of parts of the exterior cladding. Have the tenants proved that the premises were not compliant with the

HHS and if so, should they be awarded exemplary damages?

The landlord produced in evidence a HHS assessment report dated 8 December 2021 undertaken by Healthy Homes New Zealand. The report confirms that the premises were assessed for and complied with all the standards that comprise the HHS.
The tenants produced no competing assessment. Their submission appears to be that during the repair /renovation process (the replacement of the roof and part of the exterior cladding) the premises might not have been compliant.
Even if that were the case, the Tribunal would not find that the criteria for an award of exemplary damages were met. For exemplary damages to be awarded, the Tribunal would need to be persuaded that the landlord turned its/her mind to the act (HHS non-compliance) and then deliberately set about to perform the act.
That did not happen in this case. The landlord had the premises assessed for HHS compliance in December 2021 as the law required; the premises were assessed as compliant; and if there was any non-compliance for a brief period during repair/renovation work, it was temporary and remediated by the work done.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Should the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

I need not address the statutory criteria for a reduction of the term of a fixed term tenancy. It is an application with a high threshold since the Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts between parties.
The parties have agreed to end the tenancy on 29 November 2024 well before the end date in the tenancy agreement of 15 January 2025.
By consent, I have made a possession order, so the tenancy formally ends at
59pm on Friday 29 November 2024. ‘Break lease’ costs
The phrase ‘break lease’ costs is not a statutory term. It is a claim for compensation by a landlord for costs incurred when tenants in a fixed term tenancy leave the tenancy before the term has expired, either by agreement or by order of the Tribunal.
The parties have mutually agreed to end this tenancy. The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for ‘break lease’ costs.
Though not part of the application before the Tribunal, the parties agreed for me to include those costs in the order. I noted that the costs sought are about one- quarter of the costs usually claimed in a situation such as this. Result
The application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy is dismissed. By consent, the tenancy will end at 11.59pm on Friday 29 November 2024.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
I award the tenants compensation of $5,400.00 for their loss of enjoyment of their tenancy for the period during which exterior repair work was carried out at the property, together with the filing fee, a total of $5,420.44.
I award the landlord costs of $287.50 by consent for costs incurred due to the tenancy ending before the expiry of the fixed term. Name suppression
The tenants’ sought, and are entitled to, an order for name suppression on the successful application.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885563 — Tenancy dispute at 20C Siska Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885563 — Tenancy dispute at 20C Siska Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

HHS and if so, should they be awarded exemplary damages?

Should the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

HHS and if so, should they be awarded exemplary damages?

Should the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions