What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4944255 about?

The tribunal order states: Braziers Limited As Agent For Mr & Mrs Te-Tsaw Chen must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4944255?

Compensation: $5,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4944255?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4944255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10853194-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4944255 about?

The tribunal order states: Braziers Limited As Agent For Mr & Mrs Te-Tsaw Chen must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4944255?

Compensation: $5,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4944255?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4944255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10853194-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4944255 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4944255 — net $7,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$5,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,027.00

Order

Braziers Limited As Agent For Mr & Mrs Te-Tsaw Chen must pay [The tenant/s] $7,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $5,500.00 Exemplary damages $1,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $7,027.00
The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $920.00 to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord was represented by its current property manager, Ms Roundhill of Braziers.
This tenancy started in 2021. Mr & Mrs Te-Tsw Chen have been the landlords throughout but have engaged different property management companies to act as their agent during the tenancy.
The tenancy ended in August 2023. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, 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. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
The landlord initially said it had a claim against the bond but did not submit any application to the Tribunal. At the hearing, the Ms Roundhill agreed that the bond should be released to the tenant. Heating Standard
[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). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. The parties referred me to a Healthy Homes Statement provided by the landlord ot the tenant in September 2021, recording that the date for Healthy Homes Compliance for this tenancy was 11 December 2021. In oral evidence at the hearing, Ms Roundhill also confirmed that the compliance date for this tenancy was 11 December 2021.
The Healthy Homes Statement was incomplete. It records that the Heating Standard was assessed on 30 October 2020 but that information regarding the standard either doesn’t exist or cannot be provided by the landlord.
At this time (late 2021), there was no permanent form of heating at the dwelling. A heating source was required in the living room.
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. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
After the compliance date, the landlord arranged for installation of a heat pump. The installation occurred on 10 March 2022. Unfortunately, the heat pump was installed in the bedroom, not the living area. The tenant also maintains that the installed heat pump was undersized.
The tenant raised the issue the contractor and the landlord immediately and while the work was being done. He was ignored. He raised the issue multiple times after March 2022 and was ignored.
Ms Roundhill said that once she became involved in the tenancy, the issue was resolved. The heat pump was, in fact, moved or replaced after this tenancy ended in August 2024.
In an email to Ms Roundhill on 13 July 2022, the tenant stated that the flat is not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standard in that it does not have heating in the living room. The tenant asked when this would be addressed. Neither party referred me to a response to that email. When the landlord issued a notice of rent increase in July 2023, the tenant again raised concerns with the heat pump, and non-compliance with the Heating Standard.
The tenant also said that he raised the issue (and other maintenance concerns) at routine inspections and was told work wouldn’t be done, the property was being held as “land banking” and that he could move. I didn’t hear from nay representative of the landlord who was present during the alleged conversations.
It is clear, that these premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards from the compliance date, until the tenancy ended.
The two-year delay and failure to deal with an obvious non-compliance cannot be excused by the landlord and its property manager hiding behind changes in personnel and management companies. Throughout the tenancy, the tenant directed his complaints to the landlord’s authorised agents to be met with silence, for whatever reason.
Ms Roundhill attempted to argue that there was confusion over whether the bedroom was in fact the living room and the rooms being used “the wrong way around” by this tenant. The argument is without merit. The Healthy Homes Assessment report refers to the bedroom and living room in the way this tenant occupied them. Advertisements for the premises and routine inspections reports consistently refer to the bedroom and living room as they were used by this tenant.
The tenant claimed $5500, being a rent rebate of $40 per week for the period of non-compliance. That calculation is reasonable having regard to the tenants evidence of dehumidifier and heater use, dampness, loss of amenity and issues being raised and ignored. I award $5,500 as claimed.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the Heating Standard.
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.
I also find that the act was deliberate in the sense, that the tenant told the landlord, from March 2022, that the heat pump was installed in the wrong place, and nothing was done. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and provide warm, dry homes. I award exemplary damages of $1,500.
There were other issues raised at the hearing, but they were more in the nature of general complaint about the way the tenancy had been managed. I make no findings in relation to those issues.
As the tenant was the successful party, I award reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee and grant its request for suppression of its details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4944255 — net $7,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$5,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,027.00

Order

Braziers Limited As Agent For Mr & Mrs Te-Tsaw Chen must pay [The tenant/s] $7,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $5,500.00 Exemplary damages $1,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $7,027.00
The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $920.00 to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord was represented by its current property manager, Ms Roundhill of Braziers.
This tenancy started in 2021. Mr & Mrs Te-Tsw Chen have been the landlords throughout but have engaged different property management companies to act as their agent during the tenancy.
The tenancy ended in August 2023. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, 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. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
The landlord initially said it had a claim against the bond but did not submit any application to the Tribunal. At the hearing, the Ms Roundhill agreed that the bond should be released to the tenant. Heating Standard
[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). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. The parties referred me to a Healthy Homes Statement provided by the landlord ot the tenant in September 2021, recording that the date for Healthy Homes Compliance for this tenancy was 11 December 2021. In oral evidence at the hearing, Ms Roundhill also confirmed that the compliance date for this tenancy was 11 December 2021.
The Healthy Homes Statement was incomplete. It records that the Heating Standard was assessed on 30 October 2020 but that information regarding the standard either doesn’t exist or cannot be provided by the landlord.
At this time (late 2021), there was no permanent form of heating at the dwelling. A heating source was required in the living room.
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. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
After the compliance date, the landlord arranged for installation of a heat pump. The installation occurred on 10 March 2022. Unfortunately, the heat pump was installed in the bedroom, not the living area. The tenant also maintains that the installed heat pump was undersized.
The tenant raised the issue the contractor and the landlord immediately and while the work was being done. He was ignored. He raised the issue multiple times after March 2022 and was ignored.
Ms Roundhill said that once she became involved in the tenancy, the issue was resolved. The heat pump was, in fact, moved or replaced after this tenancy ended in August 2024.
In an email to Ms Roundhill on 13 July 2022, the tenant stated that the flat is not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standard in that it does not have heating in the living room. The tenant asked when this would be addressed. Neither party referred me to a response to that email. When the landlord issued a notice of rent increase in July 2023, the tenant again raised concerns with the heat pump, and non-compliance with the Heating Standard.
The tenant also said that he raised the issue (and other maintenance concerns) at routine inspections and was told work wouldn’t be done, the property was being held as “land banking” and that he could move. I didn’t hear from nay representative of the landlord who was present during the alleged conversations.
It is clear, that these premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards from the compliance date, until the tenancy ended.
The two-year delay and failure to deal with an obvious non-compliance cannot be excused by the landlord and its property manager hiding behind changes in personnel and management companies. Throughout the tenancy, the tenant directed his complaints to the landlord’s authorised agents to be met with silence, for whatever reason.
Ms Roundhill attempted to argue that there was confusion over whether the bedroom was in fact the living room and the rooms being used “the wrong way around” by this tenant. The argument is without merit. The Healthy Homes Assessment report refers to the bedroom and living room in the way this tenant occupied them. Advertisements for the premises and routine inspections reports consistently refer to the bedroom and living room as they were used by this tenant.
The tenant claimed $5500, being a rent rebate of $40 per week for the period of non-compliance. That calculation is reasonable having regard to the tenants evidence of dehumidifier and heater use, dampness, loss of amenity and issues being raised and ignored. I award $5,500 as claimed.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the Heating Standard.
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.
I also find that the act was deliberate in the sense, that the tenant told the landlord, from March 2022, that the heat pump was installed in the wrong place, and nothing was done. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and provide warm, dry homes. I award exemplary damages of $1,500.
There were other issues raised at the hearing, but they were more in the nature of general complaint about the way the tenancy had been managed. I make no findings in relation to those issues.
As the tenant was the successful party, I award reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee and grant its request for suppression of its details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4944255 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4944255 — Exemplary damages

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