Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4967513 — Cleanliness at 40 Grey Street, Feilding, Feilding 4702
Decided 24 Oct 2024 · Published 24 Oct 2024 · Application 4967513
- Cleanliness
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The landlord is to pay the tenant $265.00 immediately being compensation of $238.00 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $27.00.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenant’s application is for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the property and not complying with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) by not providing adequate heating during part of the tenancy. See sections 45(1)(b) and 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Standard of proof and evidence
- In considering the tenant’s claim, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I have considered their claim bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
- I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding the tenant’s claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony.
- While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence.
- Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the tenant’s application with this requirement in mind. Agreed facts
- The parties agreed on the following relevant facts: a. The property complied with the HHS on 3 October 2022 as evidenced by the HHS Certificate of Compliance completed on 19 September 2024. b. The parties agreed that the log burner’s chimney required cleaning at the inspection on 28 April 2024. A work order was issued. c. The chimney cleaner attended the property on 23 May 2024 and advised the tenant that the fire was not be used. d. The tenant and landlord exchanged emails about the lack of heating and progress in fixing the issue during June 2024. e. The tenant was without use of the log burner until the tenancy ended on 4 August 2024, a period of some ten weeks. Discussion
- The landlord’s records show that it did its best to have the log burner repaired. When this proved not possible, it then acted diligently in arranging to have a compliant heat pump installed.
- Despite these efforts, the result was that the tenant did not have the use of the log burner. The landlord did not therefore comply with the HHS heating standard during this period.
- The tenant gave evidence that: a. They had bought firewood that could not be used and was sold at a loss. b. The heat pump in the property was not sufficiently powerful or located to comply with the HHS. It was inadequate to heat the main living room that the log burner would usually heat. c. The tenant had to use heaters which increased their power bills. The tenant supplied copies of power bills during this period and from a year earlier. d. The tenant’s family were unable to congregate in the living area and eat together as a family. Instead, they chose to live in the bedrooms. e. The inability to heat the house had an impact on the health of the tenant and their family. f. They were seeking compensation not just for the increased power bills, but also for the lack of amenity – their ability to enjoy the property together as a family.
- The landlord gave evidence: a. The lack of compliant heating in the main living area was not due to the landlord’s intentional noncompliance or lack of diligence in having the issue fixed. b. The tenant had the benefit of a heat pump in the hallway, although the landlord acknowledged it was neither powerful enough nor correctly located to qualify as the heating for the main living area. c. It has paid an amount of compensation of $300.00 based on the tenant not having the log burner for a period of seven weeks, being the period to the originally agreed, end-date of the tenancy. d. In compensation, it also waived the increase in rent to which it was entitled, equating to $142.00. e. It agreed to the tenant extending the end date of the tenancy, despite having no legal obligation to do so. Decision
- The tenant is entitled to compensation for the lack of a qualifying heat source in the main living area for a period of ten weeks.
- Having considered the above factors and the submissions made by the parties at the hearing, compensation of $680.00 or around 10% of the rent during this period is appropriate for the following reasons: a. Inevitably the tenant will have incurred increased heating costs, although it is difficult to quantify an exact amount. b. The tenant was paying rent through the entire ten-week period. The tenant is therefore entitled to compensation for the full period. c. The tenant suffered a lack of amenity in not being able to enjoy the property fully as a family. d. The inconvenience and reduction of amenity was not severe, such as if the bathroom was unable to be used. e. The tenant was able to use the rest of the house without inconvenience.
- The landlord has already compensated the tenant $300.00 and $142.00 by waiving the rent increase. This means that there is a balance of $238.00 payable by the landlord to the tenant.
- Because [The applicant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.