What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927277 about?

The tribunal order states: Mt Vic Properties Limited David Huang must pay [The tenant/s] $2,270.44

How much money was awarded in case 4927277?

Compensation: $2,250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927277?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10931468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927277 about?

The tribunal order states: Mt Vic Properties Limited David Huang must pay [The tenant/s] $2,270.44

How much money was awarded in case 4927277?

Compensation: $2,250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927277?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10931468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927277 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927277 — net $2,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,250.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	cause the tenants have been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression ___________________________________________…
Net award	$2,270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,270.44

Order

Mt Vic Properties Limited David Huang must pay [The tenant/s] $2,270.44 immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is not reduced.
The amount to pay is calculated as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation $2,250.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,270.44

Reasons

Is compensation due for a breach of Health Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached its obligation under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45(1)(bb) a landlord “must comply with healthy homes standards” (HHS). The tenants’ claim is that the landlord failed to provide a heater that complied with section 9 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (RTR).
The tenancy began on 25 February 2024. The landlord provided an unflued gas heater (5.1KW heating capacity) in the lounge. The tenants informed the landlord that the capacity of that heater was insufficient for the size of the room required by HHS. HHS required 6.7KW of heating capacity. The landlord added a 2.4KW electric wall heater.
Following receipt of a Healthy Homes Compliance Survey Heating report a few weeks after commencing their tenancy, the tenants requested the landlord to install a heat pump, instead of the unflued gas heater, to meet HHS. That is because Section 9(2)(b) RTR states that an unflued combustion heater is an unacceptable heater for HHS compliance purposes. The landlord responded that he would apply for an exemption.
By June the landlord had not made any changes and the tenants followed up with emails. On 14 June the landlord responded by email. The email included a copy of a letter from a registered electrician stating that the property would be exempt from the heating standard because of the construction of the premises. On 22 June the tenants provided the landlord with an email from a registered electrician stating that: “All in all the installation is definitely not straight forward, however it is possible to do so”. When the landlord did not follow up with the provision of acceptable heating, the tenants lodged a Tenancy Tribunal application on 30 June. Mediation was unsuccessful. On 28 August the heat pump was installed. This shows that it was always possible for the landlord to provide heating that complied with HHS.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to comply with HHS in that an unflued gas heater was provided as the main source of heat for the lounge. An unflued combustible heater is unacceptable because it is an unhealthy form of heating. It can impact on respiratory health. The manufacturer of the unit warns of dangers to children with asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Unflued gas heaters are banned in many countries because of the known impacts on adults and children’s health.
It is clear from the evidence that the tenants had to do the leg work that the landlord should have done to make sure the premises was HHS compliant. The result of the delay in reaching the standard was that the tenants have had over six months living with unhealthy heating in the lounge. The landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing its obligation under the RTA. The tenants have not applied for exemplary damages but have requested compensation. They requested a rent reduction for that period.
The tenants are entitled to compensation. Section 77(2)(n) RTA provides for the Tribunal to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act. In considering the amount of compensation I refer to the decision in [Tenant] v Ezy Rentals NZ Limited [2022] NZTT 4323927 in which the adjudicator reviewed the bands that might usefully inform a Tribunal’s decision regarding compensation. It states: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.
I am satisfied that the compensation is in band B and is at the lower end of that band. It is in band B because the breach relates to a danger to the tenants’ health and the worry caused by using the heater. The compensation is at the lower end of band B because it will not have been happening every day of the tenancy. Heaters are not used every day. The compensation would be at the upper end if the tenants had provided evidence of impacts on respiratory health.
This compensation has not been calculated on the basis of a reduction in rent but happens to amount to $90.00 per week for 25 weeks.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

When the application was lodged, the tenants applied for reduction of the fixed- term tenancy. Since lodging the application, the heat pump has been installed. Therefore, the reason for needing to end the tenancy has been rectified.
The fixed term may not have been reduced by the Tribunal in this case because the criteria for reducing it has not been met. The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where “there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances” s66(1) RTA. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances? It does not seem to apply in this case because the unflued heater was there in the premises from the start of the tenancy. This circumstance existed at the outset and is not a change in “the applicant’s circumstances”.
For these reasons the fixed term is not reduced. Filing Fee
Because the tenants have been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927277 — net $2,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,250.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	cause the tenants have been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression ___________________________________________…
Net award	$2,270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,270.44

Order

Mt Vic Properties Limited David Huang must pay [The tenant/s] $2,270.44 immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is not reduced.
The amount to pay is calculated as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation $2,250.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,270.44

Reasons

Is compensation due for a breach of Health Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached its obligation under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45(1)(bb) a landlord “must comply with healthy homes standards” (HHS). The tenants’ claim is that the landlord failed to provide a heater that complied with section 9 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (RTR).
The tenancy began on 25 February 2024. The landlord provided an unflued gas heater (5.1KW heating capacity) in the lounge. The tenants informed the landlord that the capacity of that heater was insufficient for the size of the room required by HHS. HHS required 6.7KW of heating capacity. The landlord added a 2.4KW electric wall heater.
Following receipt of a Healthy Homes Compliance Survey Heating report a few weeks after commencing their tenancy, the tenants requested the landlord to install a heat pump, instead of the unflued gas heater, to meet HHS. That is because Section 9(2)(b) RTR states that an unflued combustion heater is an unacceptable heater for HHS compliance purposes. The landlord responded that he would apply for an exemption.
By June the landlord had not made any changes and the tenants followed up with emails. On 14 June the landlord responded by email. The email included a copy of a letter from a registered electrician stating that the property would be exempt from the heating standard because of the construction of the premises. On 22 June the tenants provided the landlord with an email from a registered electrician stating that: “All in all the installation is definitely not straight forward, however it is possible to do so”. When the landlord did not follow up with the provision of acceptable heating, the tenants lodged a Tenancy Tribunal application on 30 June. Mediation was unsuccessful. On 28 August the heat pump was installed. This shows that it was always possible for the landlord to provide heating that complied with HHS.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to comply with HHS in that an unflued gas heater was provided as the main source of heat for the lounge. An unflued combustible heater is unacceptable because it is an unhealthy form of heating. It can impact on respiratory health. The manufacturer of the unit warns of dangers to children with asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Unflued gas heaters are banned in many countries because of the known impacts on adults and children’s health.
It is clear from the evidence that the tenants had to do the leg work that the landlord should have done to make sure the premises was HHS compliant. The result of the delay in reaching the standard was that the tenants have had over six months living with unhealthy heating in the lounge. The landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing its obligation under the RTA. The tenants have not applied for exemplary damages but have requested compensation. They requested a rent reduction for that period.
The tenants are entitled to compensation. Section 77(2)(n) RTA provides for the Tribunal to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act. In considering the amount of compensation I refer to the decision in [Tenant] v Ezy Rentals NZ Limited [2022] NZTT 4323927 in which the adjudicator reviewed the bands that might usefully inform a Tribunal’s decision regarding compensation. It states: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.
I am satisfied that the compensation is in band B and is at the lower end of that band. It is in band B because the breach relates to a danger to the tenants’ health and the worry caused by using the heater. The compensation is at the lower end of band B because it will not have been happening every day of the tenancy. Heaters are not used every day. The compensation would be at the upper end if the tenants had provided evidence of impacts on respiratory health.
This compensation has not been calculated on the basis of a reduction in rent but happens to amount to $90.00 per week for 25 weeks.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

When the application was lodged, the tenants applied for reduction of the fixed- term tenancy. Since lodging the application, the heat pump has been installed. Therefore, the reason for needing to end the tenancy has been rectified.
The fixed term may not have been reduced by the Tribunal in this case because the criteria for reducing it has not been met. The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where “there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances” s66(1) RTA. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances? It does not seem to apply in this case because the unflued heater was there in the premises from the start of the tenancy. This circumstance existed at the outset and is not a change in “the applicant’s circumstances”.
For these reasons the fixed term is not reduced. Filing Fee
Because the tenants have been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927277 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927277 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is compensation due for a breach of Health Homes Standards?

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is compensation due for a breach of Health Homes Standards?

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions