How much money was awarded in case 4911487?

Compensation: breach of duty to comp…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911487?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911487?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10937671-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4911487?

Compensation: breach of duty to comp…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911487?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911487?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10937671-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

191 Queens Drive, Lyall Bay, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911487 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4911487 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911487 — net $2,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: breach of duty to comply with the law	$2,400.00	lator, and it was lucky the tenants were observant and safety conscious. I find $2,400 to be reasonable compensation.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,420.44

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

Just Property Management Limited As Agent For Rod Wongshe And Keryn Wear Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $2,420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Moran, General Manager for Just Property Management Limited.

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by renting a house with a gas hob connected to a 9kg gas bottle in a kitchen cupboard. A gas fitter called to the house said the gas bottle was “totally non compliant” and needed to be relocated. The tenants were told there was a requirement for ventilation and that the bottle needed to be secured. The gas bottle was installed outside and secured a month later. The tenants have applied for compensation in the amount of four weeks rent because house could not be rented out legally while waiting for the outside installation. The landlord does not agree to pay compensation.

This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the RTA? • How much compensation should the landlord pay?

Was there a breach of the RTA?

The facts are agreed. The tenants rented the house with the gas bottle in a cupboard. They changed it every four months or so as the gas ran out. In April 2024 they noticed the connection between the bottle and the hose was worn. This was attended to immediately and the LPG regulator was repaired. The gas bottle was moved outside one month later. As well, the tenants had started the process of leaving the fixed term tenancy early.

The tenants submitted the gas bottle did not comply with the Gas Act 1992 and the Gas (Safety and Measurement) Regulations 2010. The landlord checked with two gas fitters from different businesses who advised the gas bottle in the cupboard did not comply with the rules governing gas fittings. No one provided expert evidence. The owners submitted a written statement to the effect that they purchased the house in 2018 after the kitchen renovation was completed. They said a building consent is on record with the Council but they did not provide me with a copy of the building consent.

The building consent would have been the best evidence here. Without that it seems most likely to me the gas fitters were correct, and the gas bottle was not meant to sit in a cupboard. No provision was made for ventilation which is generally known to be a safety consideration when using gas. I am also persuaded the rules relating to the safe installation of the gas bottle are most likely found in the Gas Act or the associated regulations, which means section 45(1) RTA is relevant.

Under section 45(1), a landlord must 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. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Given the renovations there should have been some check of the building consent before the house was rented out. I find the landlord breached the RTA.

How much compensation should the landlord pay?

The tenants have claimed the return of one months rent in the amount of $3520. The starting point when allowing compensation is to consider loss. There was no loss of amenity because the tenants were allowed to continue using the gas bottle until it was relocated.

The tenants submitted that the breach made the house unrentable, but I am not sure that is correct. The gasfitter, who we are relying on as the expert here, never said the gas bottle was so unsafe that the house could not be lived in. This means there was nothing preventing the tenants from advertising themselves. I am not persuaded by this submission.

I am persuaded the tenants should get some compensation. There was a breach of a requirement for safety throughout the whole tenancy. While nothing went seriously wrong there was a broken regulator, and it was lucky the tenants were observant and safety conscious. I find $2,400 to be reasonable compensation. In coming to that amount I have been guided by the maximum amount of exemplary damages available for a breach of section 45, and the Tribunal practice of allowing 1/3 of the maximum for a first breach. Other orders

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911487 — net $2,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: breach of duty to comply with the law	$2,400.00	lator, and it was lucky the tenants were observant and safety conscious. I find $2,400 to be reasonable compensation.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,420.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Just Property Management Limited As Agent For Rod Wongshe And Keryn Wear Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $2,420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Moran, General Manager for Just Property Management Limited.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by renting a house with a gas hob connected to a 9kg gas bottle in a kitchen cupboard. A gas fitter called to the house said the gas bottle was “totally non compliant” and needed to be relocated. The tenants were told there was a requirement for ventilation and that the bottle needed to be secured. The gas bottle was installed outside and secured a month later. The tenants have applied for compensation in the amount of four weeks rent because house could not be rented out legally while waiting for the outside installation. The landlord does not agree to pay compensation.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the RTA? • How much compensation should the landlord pay?

Was there a breach of the RTA?

The facts are agreed. The tenants rented the house with the gas bottle in a cupboard. They changed it every four months or so as the gas ran out. In April 2024 they noticed the connection between the bottle and the hose was worn. This was attended to immediately and the LPG regulator was repaired. The gas bottle was moved outside one month later. As well, the tenants had started the process of leaving the fixed term tenancy early.
The tenants submitted the gas bottle did not comply with the Gas Act 1992 and the Gas (Safety and Measurement) Regulations 2010. The landlord checked with two gas fitters from different businesses who advised the gas bottle in the cupboard did not comply with the rules governing gas fittings. No one provided expert evidence. The owners submitted a written statement to the effect that they purchased the house in 2018 after the kitchen renovation was completed. They said a building consent is on record with the Council but they did not provide me with a copy of the building consent.
The building consent would have been the best evidence here. Without that it seems most likely to me the gas fitters were correct, and the gas bottle was not meant to sit in a cupboard. No provision was made for ventilation which is generally known to be a safety consideration when using gas. I am also persuaded the rules relating to the safe installation of the gas bottle are most likely found in the Gas Act or the associated regulations, which means section 45(1) RTA is relevant.
Under section 45(1), a landlord must 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. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Given the renovations there should have been some check of the building consent before the house was rented out. I find the landlord breached the RTA.

How much compensation should the landlord pay?

The tenants have claimed the return of one months rent in the amount of $3520. The starting point when allowing compensation is to consider loss. There was no loss of amenity because the tenants were allowed to continue using the gas bottle until it was relocated.
The tenants submitted that the breach made the house unrentable, but I am not sure that is correct. The gasfitter, who we are relying on as the expert here, never said the gas bottle was so unsafe that the house could not be lived in. This means there was nothing preventing the tenants from advertising themselves. I am not persuaded by this submission.
I am persuaded the tenants should get some compensation. There was a breach of a requirement for safety throughout the whole tenancy. While nothing went seriously wrong there was a broken regulator, and it was lucky the tenants were observant and safety conscious. I find $2,400 to be reasonable compensation. In coming to that amount I have been guided by the maximum amount of exemplary damages available for a breach of section 45, and the Tribunal practice of allowing 1/3 of the maximum for a first breach. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911487 — Tenancy dispute at 191 Queens Drive, Lyall Bay, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911487 — Tenancy dispute at 191 Queens Drive, Lyall Bay, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the RTA?

How much compensation should the landlord pay?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the RTA?

How much compensation should the landlord pay?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions