What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4978688 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4978688?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4978688?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4978688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11387995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4978688 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4978688?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4978688?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4978688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11387995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

161 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4978688 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4978688 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord filed a late cross application for compensation because he has not been able to rent the house out while waiting for the Wellington City Council information and the Tribunal hearing. This is not an application I can consider because it relates to events after the end of the tenancy, and I have jurisdiction to deal with claims relating to the tenancy.

The original hearing was adjourned so the landlord could obtain information from the Wellington City Council. The information provided states there are two residential units at 161 Darlington Road. It seems most likely to me the downstairs flat can be rented as a separate dwelling from the house.

This tenancy lasted 15 weeks. The tenant filed an application after the end of the tenancy because the house was very cold to live in and she did not want others to have the same experience. The claims are that the house did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and the bond was not lodged.

The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a breach of the RTA? • Should the tenant get compensation?

Was there breach of the RTA?

The tenant paid a bond and this was not lodged. The tenant was worried about this. The landlord knew that bonds should be lodged. The landlord refunded the bond in full and without delay at the end of the tenancy.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19(1) and (2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

I find there was a breach of the duty to lodge the bond. The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages.

The tenant also 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 considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard and the ventilation standard.

The HHs compliance date for this tenancy would have been 3 September 2024, 120 days after the start of the tenancy. The tenant moved out on 18 August 2024, which was before the compliance date. Despite this timing, I accept: • The tenant was not provided with a HHS statement before the start of the tenancy • The tenant assumed the house would comply with the HHS • the house was cold because of a draught coming from the front door • the two free standing heaters provided were insufficient to meet the HHS requirements • there was no opening window or extractor fan in the shower room • the kitchen window did not open and there was no extractor fan.

I find there was a breach of the duty to provide a HHS statement which meant the tenant lived in a house that was much colder than she anticipated. As well as her expectation the house would comply, maintenance should have been done to rectify the draught, fix the window that would not open in the kitchen and repair the heater that stopped working.

Should the tenant get compensation?

I find the tenant should get compensation in the amount of $500 for the failure to lodge the bond and $500 for the breaches relating to the HHS statement and the maintenance. In deciding these amounts I have considered the weekly rent, the HHs compliance date, and the loss of amenity, and the stress of having to give notice and move after only 15 weeks. Other orders

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when landlords do not lodge the bond and have to pay compensation. See 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4978688 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Ryan Street must pay [The tenant/s] $1,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord filed a late cross application for compensation because he has not been able to rent the house out while waiting for the Wellington City Council information and the Tribunal hearing. This is not an application I can consider because it relates to events after the end of the tenancy, and I have jurisdiction to deal with claims relating to the tenancy.
The original hearing was adjourned so the landlord could obtain information from the Wellington City Council. The information provided states there are two residential units at 161 Darlington Road. It seems most likely to me the downstairs flat can be rented as a separate dwelling from the house.
This tenancy lasted 15 weeks. The tenant filed an application after the end of the tenancy because the house was very cold to live in and she did not want others to have the same experience. The claims are that the house did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and the bond was not lodged.
The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a breach of the RTA? • Should the tenant get compensation?

Was there breach of the RTA?

The tenant paid a bond and this was not lodged. The tenant was worried about this. The landlord knew that bonds should be lodged. The landlord refunded the bond in full and without delay at the end of the tenancy.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19(1) and (2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I find there was a breach of the duty to lodge the bond. The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages.
The tenant also 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 considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard and the ventilation standard.
The HHs compliance date for this tenancy would have been 3 September 2024, 120 days after the start of the tenancy. The tenant moved out on 18 August 2024, which was before the compliance date. Despite this timing, I accept: • The tenant was not provided with a HHS statement before the start of the tenancy • The tenant assumed the house would comply with the HHS • the house was cold because of a draught coming from the front door • the two free standing heaters provided were insufficient to meet the HHS requirements • there was no opening window or extractor fan in the shower room • the kitchen window did not open and there was no extractor fan.
I find there was a breach of the duty to provide a HHS statement which meant the tenant lived in a house that was much colder than she anticipated. As well as her expectation the house would comply, maintenance should have been done to rectify the draught, fix the window that would not open in the kitchen and repair the heater that stopped working.

Should the tenant get compensation?

I find the tenant should get compensation in the amount of $500 for the failure to lodge the bond and $500 for the breaches relating to the HHS statement and the maintenance. In deciding these amounts I have considered the weekly rent, the HHs compliance date, and the loss of amenity, and the stress of having to give notice and move after only 15 weeks. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when landlords do not lodge the bond and have to pay compensation. See 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4978688 — Tenancy dispute at 161 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4978688 — Tenancy dispute at 161 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there breach of the RTA?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there breach of the RTA?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions