What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4971013 about?

The tribunal order states: JJ Quality Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,227.00

How much money was awarded in case 4971013?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971013?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11005429-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4971013 about?

The tribunal order states: JJ Quality Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,227.00

How much money was awarded in case 4971013?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971013?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11005429-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 10, 6 Knox Street, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4971013 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971013 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Return bond to the tenant	$1,200.00	Return bond to the tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,227.00

Mr Winchester appeared and was supported by Mr Hudson. Mr McKay and Ms Luo appeared for the landlord.

The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy that commenced 04 July 2023, and ending 11 April 2024. The tenant’s claim was filed on 14 August 2024, along with a request to be represented by Mr Hudson. This request has not been formally addressed. The tenant suffers from a significant brain injury affecting cognitive and executive functioning and has received support from Mr Hudson since October 2023. A medical certificate detailing the tenant’s condition has been produced. I have also discussed the condition and request with the tenant. The landlord has no input regarding the request for representation and believes that the matters have been resolved with the tenant agreeing to release the bond to the landlord.

Under Section 93(3) the Tribunal may allow any party to be represented by counsel if it considers that it would be appropriate to do so having regard to the nature and complexity of the issues involved or where there is any significant disparity between the parties affecting their ability to represent their respective cases.

Section 93(5)(d) provides that a minor, or any other person under a disability may be represented by someone who has sufficient knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to bind the person.

Section 93(5) (e), any person the Tribunal is satisfied is unable to adequately present his or her case, may be represented by someone who has sufficient knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to bind the person.

Disability is not defined in the Act.

Disability is defined in Butterworths New Zealand Law dictionary as: “The total or partial malfunction or malformation of a person’s body or mind.” (P Spiller, New Zealand Law Dictionary, 9th ed, LexisNexis Wellington, 2019)

After hearing from the parties and considering the documentary material, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the tenant’s request to be represented by Mr Hudson. Claims

The tenant seeks refund of the bond. The tenant also claims that the landlord has failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards for heating and ventilation, and to maintain the property in a reasonable condition, namely by failing to provide a secure front door. Bond

There is no dispute that a bond of $1,200.00 was paid by the tenant and lodged with the Bond Centre within the required 28 working day time period.

The tenant states that on 3 April 2024, they had been admitted to hospital suffering a seizure. Prior to the admission they discovered that their room had been broken into and property taken.

On 04 April 2024, the tenant reported the incident to Police. The tenant stated they also reported the matter to the landlord on the same day and was asked to provide a Police complaint reference. A compliant form has been produced. The tenant states they remained in hospital until 09 April 2024.

Mr Hudson states that on 10 April 2024, he gave notice on behalf of the tenant to end the tenancy on 11 April 2024, as he believed the landlord had failed to secure the room. Mr Hudson was unaware that the landlord had already given the tenant 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy on the same date.

The landlord denied being informed on 04 April 2024, stating the first they learned of the incident was on 10 April 2024, when advised by the tenant. The landlord states that the door to the room, the door frame, and the lock showed damage consistent with forced entry.

The landlord states that they conducted an end of tenancy inspection on 11 April 2024. The landlord states this was the first time they had met Mr Hudson in person. The landlord states that they repaired the lock immediately thereby securing the room but advised that the remaining damage would take estimated fortnight to repair. In any event the tenant was vacating the property that day.

The landlord states that the television and remote provided as chattels were missing, and that the tenant had failed to return the keys. After viewing CCTV footage showing the incident the landlord believed that the tenant was liable for the damage.

On 16 April 2024, the Police wrote to the tenant informing they could not identify the perpetrator. The landlord stated that the CCTV footage clearly showed the incident and the alleged preparator. To their knowledge, despite offering it for the investigation, the footage had not been viewed by Police.

The landlord states on or around 16 April 2024, they meet with the tenant who agreed to release $900.00 from the bond to partly cover costs. The landlord has provided a partially completed bond release form. The bond form invites the Bond Centre to release the full bond to the landlord. It has been signed by the tenant, who has provided their bank details, but not by the landlord. A handwritten note on the back of the form reads: “Entrance door, lock, frame broken. TV + Remote (to return) or we replace? call out fee $75 + GST”.

The note is signed by both parties but like the bond form is undated.

The bond was released to the landlord.

The landlord has provided a bank statement showing that on 01 May 2024, $300.00 was deposited into the tenant’s bank account.

The issue is whether a legally binding agreement was reached for the release the bond. For any agreement to be legally binding key elements such as a clear offer, unequivocal acceptance of that offer, adequate consideration, an intention to enter legal relations, and certainty of terms must be present.

Mr Hudson and the tenant both believed that the $300.00 was a refund of a rent over payment, unrelated to the bond.

The tenant cannot recall agreeing to the release of the bond and questions their liability for the damage caused during the burglary. Tenants generally are not responsible for acts committed by others on the property without their permission. The agreements details are unclear, and no specific figures are referenced. The landlord also claims that following the meeting an unsuccessful attempt was made to retrieve the television.

After hearing from the parties and objectively assessing the documentary material, I am not satisfied that there was a concluded agreement for the release of the bond. Therefore, the default provisions of the Act apply.

Section 22B(2) of the Act 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.

Although the landlord appears to have a claim against the bond, they have not filed a counterclaim. Accordingly, the landlord must return the full bond to the tenant. Healthy Homes Standards

The compliance dates for the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”) vary depending on the tenancy, with all boarding houses required to comply by 1 July 2021.

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 66I(1)(bb) of the Act , which requires compliance with the HHS.

Mr Hudson states that the tenant’s room does not have a heat pump, unlike some nearby, and that the only window in the room could not be opened. Heating

The HHS heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters,’ with a capacity to heat the main living 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 main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living, for example the lounge, family room or dining room.

Regulation 8 of the HHS states: 8 Main living room must have qualifying heaters. (1) The main living room of the premises must be heated— (a) by 1 or more qualifying heaters with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity for the main living room; or (b) by 1 or more qualifying heaters as assessed under regulation 10A; or (c) by geothermal heating as provided in regulation 10B. (2) If the premises are not in a boarding house, the main living room of the premises is, — (a) if the premises have 1 living room, that living room; or (b) if the premises have 2 or more living rooms, the largest of them. (3) If the premises are in a boarding house, the main living room of the premises is, — (a) if the facilities (as defined in section 66B of the Act) include 1 living room, that living room; or (b) if the facilities include 2 or more living rooms, the largest of them. Windows

Regulation 21 of the HHS states all habitable rooms in a rental property must have at least one window, door or skylight which opens to the outside and can be fixed in the open position. Decision

The landlord has produced an HHS compliance statement attached to the agreement. The facilities (as defined in section 66B) provided to the tenant under the agreement include a general living, dining, recreational space. The landlrod states that there is a heat pump in the general living room of the boarding house, and one that covers the hallway leading to the tenant’s room, and that both comply with the HHS.

The landlord states that while some of the larger rooms have heat pumps, they were installed prior to, and not to meet the HSS. Tenants may use their own heating appliances in their bedrooms and the landlord can supply them with a small portable heater if required.

Based on the evidence, it appears that the property complies with Regulation 8(3) of the HHS. There is no evidence that the heat pump in the general living room does not meet the required HHS. The claim is dismissed.

The landlord denies that the window in the room does not open to the outside. Apart from their oral testimony, the tenant has not provided any other evidence. There is insufficient to establish that the landlrod has failed to meet the ventilation standard and the claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain door.

The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the door to their room.

Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property and the period during which the property is likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

Section 46 of the Act states that the landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.

The landlord’s obligation under the Act is to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a period which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that period is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right whatever the problem might be.

Mr Hudson states that the tenant advised the landlord of the burglary and the need to secure the property on 04 April 2024.

The landlord denies being informed on 04 April 2024, and states the first they learned of the issue was on 10 April 2024. As stated, the landlord repaired the lock immediately securing the room. Due to the unique characteristics of the door and frame (fireproof door) these repairs took longer. In any event, the tenancy had ended, and the tenant had vacated.

Once again apart from the oral testimony of the tenant, and the landlord, there is no additional evidence such as text messages, emails etc to confirm when the landlord was informed. The onus is on the tenant to establish more likely than not that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. In this case, there is insufficient to establish the claim, and it is dismissed. Costs

As the tenant has partly succeeded with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Neither party seek suppression and no orders are made.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971013 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Return bond to the tenant	$1,200.00	Return bond to the tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,227.00