What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4968013?

The tribunal order states: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited must pay Olivia Gayle Hirst-Jury and

How much money was awarded in case 4968013?

Compensation: Loss of Amenity - Insu…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $286.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4968013?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4968013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073651-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4968013?

The tribunal order states: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited must pay Olivia Gayle Hirst-Jury and

How much money was awarded in case 4968013?

Compensation: Loss of Amenity - Insu…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $286.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4968013?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4968013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073651-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 League Lane, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4968013 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4968013 — net $413.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 November 2024	$300.00		Rent arrears to 13 November 2024
Repairs: Carpet	$286.18		Repairs: Carpet
Compensation: Loss of Amenity - Insulation		$1,000.00	Loss of Amenity - Insulation
Total award	$586.18	$1,000.00
Net award		$413.82
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$413.82

Order

Wolfbrook Property Management Limited must pay Olivia Gayle Hirst-Jury and Sean Hirst-Jury $413.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The parties’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for work orders and compensation. By the time of the hearing, work orders were not required. I have only considered claims for compensation.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and compensation.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tenant’s Claims
The tenant’s claims flow from alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Standards.
Since 1 July 2019, ceiling and underfloor insulation has been compulsory in all rental homes where it is reasonably practicable to install. It must comply with the regulations and be safely installed.
There are 2 sets of regulations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that govern standards for insulation in rental properties. These are: • Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 • Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
Which regulations apply depend on when the tenancy agreement was signed or renewed.
Any new or renewed tenancies after 1 July 2021 must meet the healthy homes insulation standards. All rental properties will need to comply with these standards by 1 July 2025. Tenancies which started before 1 July 2021 need to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
This tenancy started on 18 June 2020. The premises are required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards by 1 July 2025. The premises are not yet required to meet the Healthy Homes Standards. For that reason, all claims for breaches of Healthy Homes Standards are dismissed.
However, the premises are required to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. The minimum R-value required for underfloor insulation in this property is R1.3.
The property was built in 2018 and achieved Code Compliance. It has under floor insulation installed. However, a report obtained by the previous property manager in 2020 identified that the insulation had not been installed correctly and was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards in that some of it had detached from the underfloor and needed to be reinstalled.
There was no specific comment on whether the insulation meet the requirements of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. I find that it is more likely than not that the insulation did not meet the requirements of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 because of the detachment. It took the landlord two years to have contractor attend the premises and reinstate the detached portions of the insulation.
The delay and reinstatement occurred before this property manager was engaged to manager the tenancy. She could not explain the delay.
The tenants sought compensation. They spoke of illness and increased power bills but did not provide any corroborative evidence in relation to those issues. It is not unusual for households to have higher power bills over winter. However, I accept that there has been a loss of amenity to the tenants in having non-compliant insulation over two winters. I award $1,000.00.
The tenant’s other claims were not proved and are dismissed.
For completeness, I note that the tenant’s evidence referred to a smoke alarm having expired, but also recorded that it was compliant. The smoke alarms were not mentioned in the application. The landlord said it would look at the alarm and replace it, if required.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord tenant has breached their obligations by causing or allowing damage to be caused to the premises by an unauthorised animal at the premises. In particular, the landlord says that there is staining on the garage floor and smell caused by dog excrement. The tenants say that they look after their neighbour’s dog occasionally when she is unwell. They say that this occurs maybe twice a month and that the dog is put in the garage, but with the door open. They acknowledge that they are taking steps to clean the floor but say the smell is not as bad as the landlord suggests.
The landlord did not provide any evidence of what is required to restore the garage floor. For that reason, it is difficult to assess whether due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
On this occasion the landlord has not established that termination is appropriate. However, there is a pattern of 14 days notices for damage caused by animals. If the damage continues, another application by the landlord for termination may be successful.
The application for termination is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants acknowledged that rent is in arrears. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $300 owing at the date of the hearing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
A carpet join has been damaged and frayed during the tenancy. The landlord provided a quote for repairs of $286.18. The tenant’s accepted that they are liable for that cost.
The landlord’s application included claims for compensation for other alleged damage, but those claims were not pursued at the hearing and the landlord did not provide any evidence of repair costs.
Except as specifically awarded the claims are dismissed.
I do not consider that either party has been substantially successful with its claims so I have not reimbursed either filing fee and have not granted any request for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4968013 — net $413.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 November 2024	$300.00		Rent arrears to 13 November 2024
Repairs: Carpet	$286.18		Repairs: Carpet
Compensation: Loss of Amenity - Insulation		$1,000.00	Loss of Amenity - Insulation
Total award	$586.18	$1,000.00
Net award		$413.82
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$413.82

Order

Wolfbrook Property Management Limited must pay Olivia Gayle Hirst-Jury and Sean Hirst-Jury $413.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The parties’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for work orders and compensation. By the time of the hearing, work orders were not required. I have only considered claims for compensation.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and compensation.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tenant’s Claims
The tenant’s claims flow from alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Standards.
Since 1 July 2019, ceiling and underfloor insulation has been compulsory in all rental homes where it is reasonably practicable to install. It must comply with the regulations and be safely installed.
There are 2 sets of regulations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that govern standards for insulation in rental properties. These are: • Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 • Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
Which regulations apply depend on when the tenancy agreement was signed or renewed.
Any new or renewed tenancies after 1 July 2021 must meet the healthy homes insulation standards. All rental properties will need to comply with these standards by 1 July 2025. Tenancies which started before 1 July 2021 need to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
This tenancy started on 18 June 2020. The premises are required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards by 1 July 2025. The premises are not yet required to meet the Healthy Homes Standards. For that reason, all claims for breaches of Healthy Homes Standards are dismissed.
However, the premises are required to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. The minimum R-value required for underfloor insulation in this property is R1.3.
The property was built in 2018 and achieved Code Compliance. It has under floor insulation installed. However, a report obtained by the previous property manager in 2020 identified that the insulation had not been installed correctly and was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards in that some of it had detached from the underfloor and needed to be reinstalled.
There was no specific comment on whether the insulation meet the requirements of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. I find that it is more likely than not that the insulation did not meet the requirements of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 because of the detachment. It took the landlord two years to have contractor attend the premises and reinstate the detached portions of the insulation.
The delay and reinstatement occurred before this property manager was engaged to manager the tenancy. She could not explain the delay.
The tenants sought compensation. They spoke of illness and increased power bills but did not provide any corroborative evidence in relation to those issues. It is not unusual for households to have higher power bills over winter. However, I accept that there has been a loss of amenity to the tenants in having non-compliant insulation over two winters. I award $1,000.00.
The tenant’s other claims were not proved and are dismissed.
For completeness, I note that the tenant’s evidence referred to a smoke alarm having expired, but also recorded that it was compliant. The smoke alarms were not mentioned in the application. The landlord said it would look at the alarm and replace it, if required.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord tenant has breached their obligations by causing or allowing damage to be caused to the premises by an unauthorised animal at the premises. In particular, the landlord says that there is staining on the garage floor and smell caused by dog excrement. The tenants say that they look after their neighbour’s dog occasionally when she is unwell. They say that this occurs maybe twice a month and that the dog is put in the garage, but with the door open. They acknowledge that they are taking steps to clean the floor but say the smell is not as bad as the landlord suggests.
The landlord did not provide any evidence of what is required to restore the garage floor. For that reason, it is difficult to assess whether due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
On this occasion the landlord has not established that termination is appropriate. However, there is a pattern of 14 days notices for damage caused by animals. If the damage continues, another application by the landlord for termination may be successful.
The application for termination is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants acknowledged that rent is in arrears. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $300 owing at the date of the hearing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
A carpet join has been damaged and frayed during the tenancy. The landlord provided a quote for repairs of $286.18. The tenant’s accepted that they are liable for that cost.
The landlord’s application included claims for compensation for other alleged damage, but those claims were not pursued at the hearing and the landlord did not provide any evidence of repair costs.
Except as specifically awarded the claims are dismissed.
I do not consider that either party has been substantially successful with its claims so I have not reimbursed either filing fee and have not granted any request for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4968013 — Rent arrears at 2 League Lane, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4968013 — Rent arrears at 2 League Lane, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions