What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4977449?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4977449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4977449?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4977449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11021130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4977449?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4977449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4977449?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4977449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11021130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

76 Avonhead Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4977449 — Healthy homes

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Chee represented the tenants. Mr Wongeoon represented the landlord. The Tribunal was assisted by Ms Ho, a Mandarin interpreter.
The tenants have applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to do repairs, compensation for a repair they did, and compensation for damage to a car. They also seek exemplary damages for what they allege was the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Background
The tenancy started on 13 May 2023 and ended on 29 June 2024.
The tenancy was arranged through the tenants’ employer and often it was representatives from the employer who communicated about various issues with the landlord, rather than the tenants directly contacting the landlord.
The parties reached an agreement around end of tenancy issues and the division of the bond. Mr Chee confirmed that there was no bond dispute before the Tribunal. Issues
The tenants have claimed the following: •Exemplary damages for the premises not being HHS compliant and for the landlord failing to provide HHS information •Reimbursement of the repair cost of the bathroom door - $126.50 •A 20% rent reduction for the landlord’s failure to complete repairs - $5,487.00 •Reimbursement of the cost of repairs to a car - $955.65. Relevant legal principles – compensation and exemplary damages; standard of proof
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenant’s compensation claims are for actual losses – repairs to the bathroom door and to a car.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Were the premises HHS compliant?

Mr Chee said that the premises were cold and draughty. The tenants did not produce any evidence to prove that the premises were not HHS compliant.
The landlord produced a HHS assessment report following an assessment of the premises on 6 March 2023 about 2 months before the start of the tenancy.
The HHS assessment report is comprehensive and includes photos. The assessor states that the premises were HHS compliant.
In the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary, I find that the premises were HHS compliant. Mr Chee’s evidence that the premises were cold and draughty is not sufficient to refute the landlord’s documentary evidence. The report was close in time to the start of the tenancy.
The landlord said he provided the HHS report to the tenants’ representative. He said he received communications from more than one representative for the tenants which was confusing.
I find that the landlord disclosed the HHS report. Probably communication issues as between the tenants and their representative(s) meant they did not receive it.
I find that the landlord did not commit any unlawful act; the premises were HHS compliant. I dismiss the tenants’ application for exemplary damages. The bathroom door repair
The tenants said they asked for the bathroom door to be repaired but it was not.
The landlord produced evidence of a bathroom door repair. Mr Wongeoon said he was unaware that a second repair was required.
The tenancy started on 13 May 2023. The tenant’s invoice for this repair is dated 2 June 2023, less than 3 weeks after the tenancy started.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides a process for parties to follow for repair and other issues. The tenants should have issued a 14-day notice for the repair. They did not. I accept Mr Wongeoon’s evidence that he was not aware of the repair, or the tenant’s claim for reimbursement, until the application was filed.
Possibly this was another miscommunication as between the tenants, their representative(s), and the landlord. However, I find no breach by the landlord. Had the landlord been aware of the need for a repair they would have addressed it as they did with other repairs.
That the tenants went ahead with the repair work without proper notice to the landlord means that the Tribunal is not willing to order the landlord to pay the repair cost. I dismiss the tenants’ application for compensation. A 20% rent reduction for the landlord’s failure to do repairs
This claim is unrealistic. Compensation equivalent to 20% of the rent would only be awarded in cases of significant breach by the landlord.
The tenants have referred to the front door not closing nor able to be locked. Mr Chee’s evidence about this was difficult to follow. First, he said the front door would not close. Then he said it could be closed and locked, but with difficulty. Then he said the tenants chose to leave the door open all the time, including during the night, because they did not want to push and pull it when they arrived home late. He said they felt unsafe.
Mr Wongeoon said he was shocked to hear that evidence because he did not know the door required repair.
Mr Chee referred to holes in the concrete outside, draughts though the windows, and holes in the rubbish bins. Mr Wongeoon said he was never informed of the need for repairs. He was only aware of the driveway issue. He said the owner did some driveway repairs in October 2023.
Again, there might have been a miscommunication issue between the tenants’ agents/representatives and the landlord. But the evidence does not establish that the landlord knew of, and ignored, the need for repairs.
The limited evidence the tenants presented shows that the holes in the rubbish bins were minor. The draught issue is not proved given the HHS assessment report the landlord produced in evidence. I accept Mr Wongeoon’s evidence that he was unaware of the front door requiring repair.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for a 20% rent reduction as compensation for the landlord’s failure to do repairs. A failure by the landlord to repair and maintain the premises is not proved. Car repair
Mr Chee alleges that a car owned (presumably) by him was damaged due to the broken concrete on the driveway.
The limited photographic evidence shows some cracks in the concrete on the driveway.
Mr Chee said he was insured but he did not make an insurance claim because the procedure was complicated and would take too long. He said he did not know what insurance excess applied to his policy.
The invoice for this repair is dated 1 November 2023. It mentions no probable cause of the damage which is described as damage to the font bar and fittings, guard liners and undertrays.
Mr Wongeoon said he accepted that the driveway had some issues, but the evidence did not show that the damage to the car was the result of cracks in the concrete. That the invoice described damage to the front bar suggested it was more likely impact damage.
I do not find this claim proved. The tenants did not provide any clear photos of the damage for the Tribunal to assess; there is no description of the cause of the damage in the repair invoice; there is no insurance assessment, even though Mr Chee confirmed he has insurance.
Without more evidence, this claim fails for lack of proof and is dismissed. Result
The tenants’ have failed to prove their claims against the landlord. The application is dismissed. Name suppression
Neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Chee represented the tenants. Mr Wongeoon represented the landlord. The Tribunal was assisted by Ms Ho, a Mandarin interpreter.
The tenants have applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to do repairs, compensation for a repair they did, and compensation for damage to a car. They also seek exemplary damages for what they allege was the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Background
The tenancy started on 13 May 2023 and ended on 29 June 2024.
The tenancy was arranged through the tenants’ employer and often it was representatives from the employer who communicated about various issues with the landlord, rather than the tenants directly contacting the landlord.
The parties reached an agreement around end of tenancy issues and the division of the bond. Mr Chee confirmed that there was no bond dispute before the Tribunal. Issues
The tenants have claimed the following: •Exemplary damages for the premises not being HHS compliant and for the landlord failing to provide HHS information •Reimbursement of the repair cost of the bathroom door - $126.50 •A 20% rent reduction for the landlord’s failure to complete repairs - $5,487.00 •Reimbursement of the cost of repairs to a car - $955.65. Relevant legal principles – compensation and exemplary damages; standard of proof
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenant’s compensation claims are for actual losses – repairs to the bathroom door and to a car.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Were the premises HHS compliant?

Mr Chee said that the premises were cold and draughty. The tenants did not produce any evidence to prove that the premises were not HHS compliant.
The landlord produced a HHS assessment report following an assessment of the premises on 6 March 2023 about 2 months before the start of the tenancy.
The HHS assessment report is comprehensive and includes photos. The assessor states that the premises were HHS compliant.
In the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary, I find that the premises were HHS compliant. Mr Chee’s evidence that the premises were cold and draughty is not sufficient to refute the landlord’s documentary evidence. The report was close in time to the start of the tenancy.
The landlord said he provided the HHS report to the tenants’ representative. He said he received communications from more than one representative for the tenants which was confusing.
I find that the landlord disclosed the HHS report. Probably communication issues as between the tenants and their representative(s) meant they did not receive it.
I find that the landlord did not commit any unlawful act; the premises were HHS compliant. I dismiss the tenants’ application for exemplary damages. The bathroom door repair
The tenants said they asked for the bathroom door to be repaired but it was not.
The landlord produced evidence of a bathroom door repair. Mr Wongeoon said he was unaware that a second repair was required.
The tenancy started on 13 May 2023. The tenant’s invoice for this repair is dated 2 June 2023, less than 3 weeks after the tenancy started.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides a process for parties to follow for repair and other issues. The tenants should have issued a 14-day notice for the repair. They did not. I accept Mr Wongeoon’s evidence that he was not aware of the repair, or the tenant’s claim for reimbursement, until the application was filed.
Possibly this was another miscommunication as between the tenants, their representative(s), and the landlord. However, I find no breach by the landlord. Had the landlord been aware of the need for a repair they would have addressed it as they did with other repairs.
That the tenants went ahead with the repair work without proper notice to the landlord means that the Tribunal is not willing to order the landlord to pay the repair cost. I dismiss the tenants’ application for compensation. A 20% rent reduction for the landlord’s failure to do repairs
This claim is unrealistic. Compensation equivalent to 20% of the rent would only be awarded in cases of significant breach by the landlord.
The tenants have referred to the front door not closing nor able to be locked. Mr Chee’s evidence about this was difficult to follow. First, he said the front door would not close. Then he said it could be closed and locked, but with difficulty. Then he said the tenants chose to leave the door open all the time, including during the night, because they did not want to push and pull it when they arrived home late. He said they felt unsafe.
Mr Wongeoon said he was shocked to hear that evidence because he did not know the door required repair.
Mr Chee referred to holes in the concrete outside, draughts though the windows, and holes in the rubbish bins. Mr Wongeoon said he was never informed of the need for repairs. He was only aware of the driveway issue. He said the owner did some driveway repairs in October 2023.
Again, there might have been a miscommunication issue between the tenants’ agents/representatives and the landlord. But the evidence does not establish that the landlord knew of, and ignored, the need for repairs.
The limited evidence the tenants presented shows that the holes in the rubbish bins were minor. The draught issue is not proved given the HHS assessment report the landlord produced in evidence. I accept Mr Wongeoon’s evidence that he was unaware of the front door requiring repair.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for a 20% rent reduction as compensation for the landlord’s failure to do repairs. A failure by the landlord to repair and maintain the premises is not proved. Car repair
Mr Chee alleges that a car owned (presumably) by him was damaged due to the broken concrete on the driveway.
The limited photographic evidence shows some cracks in the concrete on the driveway.
Mr Chee said he was insured but he did not make an insurance claim because the procedure was complicated and would take too long. He said he did not know what insurance excess applied to his policy.
The invoice for this repair is dated 1 November 2023. It mentions no probable cause of the damage which is described as damage to the font bar and fittings, guard liners and undertrays.
Mr Wongeoon said he accepted that the driveway had some issues, but the evidence did not show that the damage to the car was the result of cracks in the concrete. That the invoice described damage to the front bar suggested it was more likely impact damage.
I do not find this claim proved. The tenants did not provide any clear photos of the damage for the Tribunal to assess; there is no description of the cause of the damage in the repair invoice; there is no insurance assessment, even though Mr Chee confirmed he has insurance.
Without more evidence, this claim fails for lack of proof and is dismissed. Result
The tenants’ have failed to prove their claims against the landlord. The application is dismissed. Name suppression
Neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4977449 — Healthy homes at 76 Avonhead Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4977449 — Healthy homes at 76 Avonhead Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises HHS compliant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises HHS compliant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions