What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5002833 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 5002833?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002833?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11316942-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5002833 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 5002833?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002833?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11316942-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

227A Panama Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5002833 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

All four tenants attended the video hearing. Ms Yun attended the hearing via phone.
At the start of the hearing, Ms Yun queried why a Korean interpreter was not present to assist her. I advised Ms Yun that no request had been made for an interpreter. I asked Ms Yun if she wished to request an adjournment so that a Korean interpreter could be arranged by the Ministry of Justice to assist her. When I explained that in order to arrange an interpreter it would mean the hearing would take place on another date, Ms Yun stated she wished to proceed without an interpreter present.

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Burden and standard of proof

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Exemplary damages
In the tenant’s claim, the Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has 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 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS

Should the bond be refunded to the tenants?

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord stated at the hearing that she has a claim against the bond, however the landlord has not filed a counterclaim.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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.
As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
I note that the bond held by the Bond Centre is in the name of “[Person A].” One of the tenants, [Tenant A], stated [Person A] is her aunty. Neither party could explain why the bond was being held in the name of [Person A], but it was not in dispute that the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) was held on behalf of the four named tenants in this proceeding. Did the landlord breach their Healthy Home Standards responsibilities in relation to insulation?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 1 covers Auckland and the upper North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is
3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants say there was underfloor insulation and also ceiling insulation installed, however, they say the ceiling insulation was old and powdery and appeared to be sunken in. [Tenant B] stated he inspected both the underfloor insulation and ceiling insulation in February 2024, shortly after the tenancy began. He says the landlord asked him to inspect it and tell her its condition.
The tenants did not produce any photographs of the insulation in either the ceiling or underfloor. Nor did they produce any report on the home’s insulation by an independent party. The tenants did not produce any evidence to indicate whether the insulation met the standards as set out above at paragraph 17 and 18.
The landlord confirmed she asked the tenants to inspect the insulation while she was in Australia. She says the ceiling insulation was installed one or two years before the tenants moved in, in line with the change in government regulations.
I find there is insufficient evidence relating to the condition of the ceiling and underfloor insulation for me to be satisfied the landlord breached their obligations. Aside from [Tenant B’s] oral evidence of his observations in February 2024, the only other evidence the tenants provided was four photographs of the interior of the premises. None of the photographs were of the ceiling insulation or underfloor insulation. [Tenant B] did not take any measurements of the depth of the insulation he observed. I do not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the insulation which was installed in the ceiling and underfloor met the required standard. Given this, I do not find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
As I have not found an unlawful act has been committed, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

All four tenants attended the video hearing. Ms Yun attended the hearing via phone.
At the start of the hearing, Ms Yun queried why a Korean interpreter was not present to assist her. I advised Ms Yun that no request had been made for an interpreter. I asked Ms Yun if she wished to request an adjournment so that a Korean interpreter could be arranged by the Ministry of Justice to assist her. When I explained that in order to arrange an interpreter it would mean the hearing would take place on another date, Ms Yun stated she wished to proceed without an interpreter present.

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Burden and standard of proof

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Exemplary damages
In the tenant’s claim, the Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has 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 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS

Should the bond be refunded to the tenants?

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord stated at the hearing that she has a claim against the bond, however the landlord has not filed a counterclaim.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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.
As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
I note that the bond held by the Bond Centre is in the name of “[Person A].” One of the tenants, [Tenant A], stated [Person A] is her aunty. Neither party could explain why the bond was being held in the name of [Person A], but it was not in dispute that the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) was held on behalf of the four named tenants in this proceeding. Did the landlord breach their Healthy Home Standards responsibilities in relation to insulation?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 1 covers Auckland and the upper North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is
3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants say there was underfloor insulation and also ceiling insulation installed, however, they say the ceiling insulation was old and powdery and appeared to be sunken in. [Tenant B] stated he inspected both the underfloor insulation and ceiling insulation in February 2024, shortly after the tenancy began. He says the landlord asked him to inspect it and tell her its condition.
The tenants did not produce any photographs of the insulation in either the ceiling or underfloor. Nor did they produce any report on the home’s insulation by an independent party. The tenants did not produce any evidence to indicate whether the insulation met the standards as set out above at paragraph 17 and 18.
The landlord confirmed she asked the tenants to inspect the insulation while she was in Australia. She says the ceiling insulation was installed one or two years before the tenants moved in, in line with the change in government regulations.
I find there is insufficient evidence relating to the condition of the ceiling and underfloor insulation for me to be satisfied the landlord breached their obligations. Aside from [Tenant B’s] oral evidence of his observations in February 2024, the only other evidence the tenants provided was four photographs of the interior of the premises. None of the photographs were of the ceiling insulation or underfloor insulation. [Tenant B] did not take any measurements of the depth of the insulation he observed. I do not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the insulation which was installed in the ceiling and underfloor met the required standard. Given this, I do not find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
As I have not found an unlawful act has been committed, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5002833 — Smoke alarms at 227A Panama Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5002833 — Smoke alarms at 227A Panama Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Should the bond be refunded to the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Should the bond be refunded to the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions