What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4930853 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 4930853?

Compensation: Breach HHS Heating: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930853?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10748156-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4930853 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 4930853?

Compensation: Breach HHS Heating: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930853?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10748156-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2C, 15 Blake Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4930853 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4930853 — net $1,047.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach HHS heating	$300.00	Breach HHS heating
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS heating	$720.00	Breach HHS heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,047.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,047.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
must pay immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made the following claims: a. Review rent increase and set to market rent if necessary. b. Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard. c. Review settlement of Mediated Order.
The landlord came to the hearing with one claim which was to seek compensation for a fine of $149.99 by the Body Corporate incurred on the owner for breaching the Body Corporate rules. In the course of the hearing the landlord withdrew this claim. The claim is dismissed. Review Rent Increase
On 16 January 2024 the landlord sent the tenant a notice to increase the rent from $900.00 per week to $980.00 per week. The notice stated that this would take effect from 23 March 2024. The tenancy ended on 14 August 2024. This is a period of 20 weeks and 4 days. The tenant paid the rent increase but seeks to be compensated for it.
The tenant’s application is made under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (“RTA”) which states: 25Market rent (1)On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That is to say, the applicant must prove that the rent payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
In a recent District Court decision by his Honour Tuohy J 1 the Court held at [29]: “The first task for an Adjudicator at a rehearing will be to make a finding as to what the market rent is. That will require evidence.”
Later in the same paragraph the Court continued: “However, rentals paid for comparative properties are objective facts which can be proven. It is only once a market rent is established that the Tribunal can decide whether the rent paid or payable exceeds it by a substantial amount. If it cannot be established, an application under s 25 must fail.” 1 Fisken and Associates Limited v Anthony Lecole and Peter Lecole [2023] NZDC 17698
The Tribunal must therefore first establish what the market rent for a property is, and then assess whether this amounts exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
The tenant and the landlord each provided information for two properties for rent in the same area: a. Tenant #1. April 2024. Fitzroy, $980.00, standalone, 2 storey, 3 bed, garden, extra carpark, semi-furnished. A better property. b. Tenant #2. April 2024. Belvedere, $880.00, the same apartment block, exactly same layout as tenant’s property, 2 carparks, newly renovated, semi- furnished. A better condition property. c. Landlord #1. June 2024. Vermont, $1,150.00, 3 beds, townhouse, 2 carparks, unfurnished, 130m2, 2 bath. A better property. d. Landlord #2. June 2024. Lincoln $935.00, 3 bed, 1 bath, unfurnished, No OSP, smaller, free standing. A worse property.
The landlord stated the floor area of the tenant’s apartment is 97m2. The tenant said that calculation included the decks; without the decks it was only 80m2.
The tenant stated that the market had softened after January 2024 when the rent increase was set, meaning rent prices had dropped after January 2024.
The landlord agreed in as much as she said there is a seasonal adjustment each year whereby rent prices drop in winter and increase in summer. However the landlord also stated that Auckland-wide, rent prices had increased 4% from January 2024 to August 2024.
The tenant claimed that the rent was overpriced because a lot of the chattels that the tenancy was taken with had been removed or were not serviceable. I note that both the properties the tenant provided information for were semi- furnished. I consider the tenant’s property to also be semi-furnished.
Information was provided by each party on upper, medium and lower quartile averages taken from Tenancy Services or similar websites. This information is not particular enough to assist and I set it aside.
The landlord commented that the Belvedere rent may have been lower than the tenant’s property because the landlord was being fussy in choosing a tenant. I take into account that there is some seasonal variation in rent prices, and other factors that may mean a property is worth more one day than on another, and worth more to one person than to another.
I consider the Fitzroy property to be better but different than the tenant’s property, and it rents for the same as the tenant was paying.
I consider the Belvedere property to be the most similar to the tenant’s property but better than the tenant’s property. It rents for $100.00 less than the tenant was paying.
I consider the Vermont property to be better, and it rents for $80.00 per week more than the tenant was paying.
I consider the Lincoln property to be worse but different than the tenant’s property and it rents for $45.00 less per week than the tenant was paying.
The sample provided is not great in that it includes properties that are free standing or semi-detached which are markedly different in character to the tenant’s apartment. However there is enough similarity for me to set the market rent, as overall I can see a pattern in the pricing, with the exception of the Belvedere property which is most similar but with a considerably lower rent than the other properties. The lower rent in comparison to the tenant’s property may partially be explained by the season adjustment and softening of the market that both parties spoke of. However I also see the pricing of the Belvedere property something of an anomaly amongst the sample group. On the other hand the Vermont property appears to be a notch above the others in what it provides, and this is reflected in the highest price.
Considering the above factors, I would set the market rent for the tenant’s property at $930.00 per week in January 2024. Whereas this amount is somewhat more than the Belvedere property which is most similar, I note that rent prices had probably dropped in the interim, and I also point out that $930.00 is slightly less than the Lincoln property which I assessed as being probably worse than the tenant’s property.
The market rent that I set for the property is less than what the rent increase put the rent up to by $50.00 per week or approximately 5.3%. Whereas this is not an insignificant amount, I do not consider it to be a substantial amount, as is required by section 25 of the RTA.
This claim is not proved. Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard
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). considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: For private rentals If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, (this tenancy commenced in October 2022) the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case the landlord concedes that they were in breach of the heating standard, and in consideration of the exemption (which they say applied to the property) they should have supplied a 2.4kw heating panel.
I determine that was in breach of the HH heating standard and therefore committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant states that she bought her own heater at a cost of approximately $150.00 in order to compensate for the landlord not providing one, and she considers that because a heat pump or radiator runs on a thermostat the power usage over the two winters of the tenancy would have been less if the landlord had been complying with their obligations to provide a complying heater. I note that the tenant gets to keep the heater that she purchased. The tenant also raised that her son caught a serious illness during this period and the lack of meeting the heating standard may have contributed to this. I give little weight to this submission as I don’t believe the applicant is a person who was unable to mitigate against the landlord’s breach of the heating standard.
I award $300.00 damages as general compensation for the heater and power consumption costs that the tenant incurred and I award $720.00 exemplary damages for breaching the HH heating standard. I consider this to be a significant amount, necessary in the circumstances given the high public interest in adhering to the Healthy Homes Standards, and given there was no attempt at complying with the standard for the duration of an almost two year tenancy. The Mediated Order
On 15 August 2023 the parties attended mediation with the result that a Mediated Order was issued which resulted in the tenant receiving: a. $350.00 for cleaning costs, b. The fixed term tenancy being converted to a periodic tenancy, c. Agreement that the chattels list would be set aside at the end of the tenancy, d. Notice period to end the tenancy reduced from 28 days to 21 days.
The landlord received settlement of all the tenant’s claims in her application.
The tenant has asked that the Mediated Order be set aside so the matters can be addressed by the Tribunal. She states that the claims that she made in the application have continued to be issues subsequent to the order.
I do not have a power under the RTA to set aside or go behind a Mediated Order. I note that there is no question raised regarding the landlord’s compliance with the terms of the Order. Filing fee
Because has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4930853 — net $1,047.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach HHS heating	$300.00	Breach HHS heating
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS heating	$720.00	Breach HHS heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,047.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,047.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
must pay immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made the following claims: a. Review rent increase and set to market rent if necessary. b. Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard. c. Review settlement of Mediated Order.
The landlord came to the hearing with one claim which was to seek compensation for a fine of $149.99 by the Body Corporate incurred on the owner for breaching the Body Corporate rules. In the course of the hearing the landlord withdrew this claim. The claim is dismissed. Review Rent Increase
On 16 January 2024 the landlord sent the tenant a notice to increase the rent from $900.00 per week to $980.00 per week. The notice stated that this would take effect from 23 March 2024. The tenancy ended on 14 August 2024. This is a period of 20 weeks and 4 days. The tenant paid the rent increase but seeks to be compensated for it.
The tenant’s application is made under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (“RTA”) which states: 25Market rent (1)On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That is to say, the applicant must prove that the rent payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
In a recent District Court decision by his Honour Tuohy J 1 the Court held at [29]: “The first task for an Adjudicator at a rehearing will be to make a finding as to what the market rent is. That will require evidence.”
Later in the same paragraph the Court continued: “However, rentals paid for comparative properties are objective facts which can be proven. It is only once a market rent is established that the Tribunal can decide whether the rent paid or payable exceeds it by a substantial amount. If it cannot be established, an application under s 25 must fail.” 1 Fisken and Associates Limited v Anthony Lecole and Peter Lecole [2023] NZDC 17698
The Tribunal must therefore first establish what the market rent for a property is, and then assess whether this amounts exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
The tenant and the landlord each provided information for two properties for rent in the same area: a. Tenant #1. April 2024. Fitzroy, $980.00, standalone, 2 storey, 3 bed, garden, extra carpark, semi-furnished. A better property. b. Tenant #2. April 2024. Belvedere, $880.00, the same apartment block, exactly same layout as tenant’s property, 2 carparks, newly renovated, semi- furnished. A better condition property. c. Landlord #1. June 2024. Vermont, $1,150.00, 3 beds, townhouse, 2 carparks, unfurnished, 130m2, 2 bath. A better property. d. Landlord #2. June 2024. Lincoln $935.00, 3 bed, 1 bath, unfurnished, No OSP, smaller, free standing. A worse property.
The landlord stated the floor area of the tenant’s apartment is 97m2. The tenant said that calculation included the decks; without the decks it was only 80m2.
The tenant stated that the market had softened after January 2024 when the rent increase was set, meaning rent prices had dropped after January 2024.
The landlord agreed in as much as she said there is a seasonal adjustment each year whereby rent prices drop in winter and increase in summer. However the landlord also stated that Auckland-wide, rent prices had increased 4% from January 2024 to August 2024.
The tenant claimed that the rent was overpriced because a lot of the chattels that the tenancy was taken with had been removed or were not serviceable. I note that both the properties the tenant provided information for were semi- furnished. I consider the tenant’s property to also be semi-furnished.
Information was provided by each party on upper, medium and lower quartile averages taken from Tenancy Services or similar websites. This information is not particular enough to assist and I set it aside.
The landlord commented that the Belvedere rent may have been lower than the tenant’s property because the landlord was being fussy in choosing a tenant. I take into account that there is some seasonal variation in rent prices, and other factors that may mean a property is worth more one day than on another, and worth more to one person than to another.
I consider the Fitzroy property to be better but different than the tenant’s property, and it rents for the same as the tenant was paying.
I consider the Belvedere property to be the most similar to the tenant’s property but better than the tenant’s property. It rents for $100.00 less than the tenant was paying.
I consider the Vermont property to be better, and it rents for $80.00 per week more than the tenant was paying.
I consider the Lincoln property to be worse but different than the tenant’s property and it rents for $45.00 less per week than the tenant was paying.
The sample provided is not great in that it includes properties that are free standing or semi-detached which are markedly different in character to the tenant’s apartment. However there is enough similarity for me to set the market rent, as overall I can see a pattern in the pricing, with the exception of the Belvedere property which is most similar but with a considerably lower rent than the other properties. The lower rent in comparison to the tenant’s property may partially be explained by the season adjustment and softening of the market that both parties spoke of. However I also see the pricing of the Belvedere property something of an anomaly amongst the sample group. On the other hand the Vermont property appears to be a notch above the others in what it provides, and this is reflected in the highest price.
Considering the above factors, I would set the market rent for the tenant’s property at $930.00 per week in January 2024. Whereas this amount is somewhat more than the Belvedere property which is most similar, I note that rent prices had probably dropped in the interim, and I also point out that $930.00 is slightly less than the Lincoln property which I assessed as being probably worse than the tenant’s property.
The market rent that I set for the property is less than what the rent increase put the rent up to by $50.00 per week or approximately 5.3%. Whereas this is not an insignificant amount, I do not consider it to be a substantial amount, as is required by section 25 of the RTA.
This claim is not proved. Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard
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). considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: For private rentals If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, (this tenancy commenced in October 2022) the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case the landlord concedes that they were in breach of the heating standard, and in consideration of the exemption (which they say applied to the property) they should have supplied a 2.4kw heating panel.
I determine that was in breach of the HH heating standard and therefore committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant states that she bought her own heater at a cost of approximately $150.00 in order to compensate for the landlord not providing one, and she considers that because a heat pump or radiator runs on a thermostat the power usage over the two winters of the tenancy would have been less if the landlord had been complying with their obligations to provide a complying heater. I note that the tenant gets to keep the heater that she purchased. The tenant also raised that her son caught a serious illness during this period and the lack of meeting the heating standard may have contributed to this. I give little weight to this submission as I don’t believe the applicant is a person who was unable to mitigate against the landlord’s breach of the heating standard.
I award $300.00 damages as general compensation for the heater and power consumption costs that the tenant incurred and I award $720.00 exemplary damages for breaching the HH heating standard. I consider this to be a significant amount, necessary in the circumstances given the high public interest in adhering to the Healthy Homes Standards, and given there was no attempt at complying with the standard for the duration of an almost two year tenancy. The Mediated Order
On 15 August 2023 the parties attended mediation with the result that a Mediated Order was issued which resulted in the tenant receiving: a. $350.00 for cleaning costs, b. The fixed term tenancy being converted to a periodic tenancy, c. Agreement that the chattels list would be set aside at the end of the tenancy, d. Notice period to end the tenancy reduced from 28 days to 21 days.
The landlord received settlement of all the tenant’s claims in her application.
The tenant has asked that the Mediated Order be set aside so the matters can be addressed by the Tribunal. She states that the claims that she made in the application have continued to be issues subsequent to the order.
I do not have a power under the RTA to set aside or go behind a Mediated Order. I note that there is no question raised regarding the landlord’s compliance with the terms of the Order. Filing fee
Because has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4930853 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 2C, 15 Blake Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4930853 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 2C, 15 Blake Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

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