How much money was awarded in case 5031351?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5031351?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5031351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11414392-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5031351?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5031351?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5031351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11414392-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5031351 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5031351 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5031351 — net $727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: delay in lodging bond	$100.00	delay in lodging bond
Exemplary damages: delay in providing a compliant smoke alarm	$600.00	delay in providing a compliant smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$727.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Glentek Holdings Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $727.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The application for orders for the refund of utility costs, the provision of a stove/oven, compensation for privacy breaches, and a market rent determination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by phone. Mr and Mrs Glen, directors of the landlord company, represented the landlord.

For ease, I will refer to the parties as tenant and landlord. Background

The tenancy started on 1 October 2022. The tenancy agreement was signed on 20 September 2022 but building work at the premises had not been completed so the commencement date was delayed.

The premises are located at [Event location suppressed], a popular tourist destination. There is a main house rented as short stay tourist accommodation and the smaller premises the tenant rents under a periodic tenancy agreement, a one-bedroom self-contained unit.

The tenant’s former employer arranged the tenancy and communicated with the landlord about it. However, that person was never the formal property manager. The parties are the tenant and the landlord as noted, with Mr Glen and his wife being the company’s representatives as directors.

A separate firm manages the short-term tourist accommodation but does not manage the tenant’s tenancy. The tenant works for that firm. That said, the landlord is in regular communication with the firm that manages the tourist accommodation and discusses some aspects of the tenant’s tenancy when matters need to be attended to. The directors of the landlord company are based in Christchurch.

The hearing was managed by the Timaru registry that being the nearest Court to the cause of action. Because the tenant requested a telephone attendance, and the directors of the landlord are Christchurch based, with the agreement of the parties, I convened the hearing in [Event location suppressed]. Issues

The tenant has applied for various orders. I held a telephone directions conference with the parties on 5 December 2024. I identified the following issues for determination by the Tribunal: • A dispute about the payment of utilities – gas, internet • An issue relevant to the Healthy Homes Standards (the kitchen extractor fan) and to the smoke alarm requirements • The late lodgement of the bond • The absence of a stove/oven • A breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/privacy by the landlord’s guests • A breach of privacy by the landlord discussing her tenancy with her employer • A market rent determination.

I directed the parties to file a statement of claim and a statement of defence. The tenant did so. The landlord did not but read from a prepared statement of defence at the hearing. Relevant legal considerations

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.

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 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). They 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.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. It provides in part: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and (ba) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A; and (bb) comply with the healthy homes standards; and... (e) take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.

Section 25 RTA provides in part: 25 Market rent (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.

Section 38 RTA provides in part: Quiet enjoyment (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. Analysis of the issues Utilities – gas and internet

The tenant’s utilities (power and internet) are included as part of her rent but not gas.

She considers that there are sometimes unused gas credits she does not receive. She also considers that she is not liable for the cost of the hire of the gas bottles.

Landlords are responsible for the hire of gas bottles, tenants the gas use.

The landlord produced evidence that the tenant owes $302.62. That seems to include gas bottle hire and usage.

The tenant has asked for a copy of all the Genesis Energy accounts so she can cross reference her payments. She is entitled to see the accounts. That does not require a Tribunal order.

The solution to the gas usage issue appears to be either that the tenant opens an account in her name, or that she be authorised on the landlord’s account for the unit she rents. That should be easily done. The Tribunal cannot make any orders to that effect.

I am unwilling to make an order for the refund of gas bottle hire ($84.00 at $6.00 per month) when the tenant might well owe the landlord for outstanding gas use. If she does owe the landlord for gas the bottle hire component can be off set.

The parties need to sort out these issues themselves as there is no obvious order the Tribunal can make.

The landlord expressed frustration with communication with the tenant. That needs to stop. It is for them to find the solution to this issue.

The tenant has elected to use her own internet provider (not fibre) even though her rent includes the provision of the internet. And she wants to have fibre installed at her cost.

The landlord confirmed that there is a secure fibre connection already. Mr Glen said he remained willing for the tenant to cease her own connection and use the existing fibre connection.

Again, this is not an issue the Tribunal can make any order about. The parties need to reach their own agreement. The landlord can and does provide a fibre connection. Whether the tenant elects to use it or not is her decision.

I make no order reimbursing the tenant the cost of her internet service, nor any order about the installation of fibre when there is already a fibre connection available.

If there are security issues as the tenant said there were, with her emails and other search material appearing on the screen in the main house, that is something that should easily be able to be sorted out.

The Tribunal makes no orders about these issues. The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) – the extractor fan in the kitchen The smoke alarm

The tenant said there is no externally vented extractor fan in the kitchen. The landlord does not dispute that.

The landlord provided a healthy homes compliance certificate in evidence.

The photos the landlord produced show that there is an openable window to the left of the kitchen bench. There is no stove/cooktop.

The tenant produced no evidence of non-compliance with the HHS. I accept that the landlord is correct. These premises do not require an externally vented extractor fan because there is no cooktop and there is an openable window.

The tenant has not proved any breach of the HHS in this case so the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.

The tenant said there was no smoke alarm in the premises until 21 April 2023. The landlord accepted that. Mr Glen said he was unaware of the smoke alarm not being installed as he relied on someone else to inspect the premises before the tenant took possession.

The RTA provides for exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for a landlord failing to comply with the smoke alarm regulations. That shows how seriously Parliament regarded this breach that constitutes an unlawful act.

The landlord immediately rectified the absence of the smoke alarm once he became aware of it. But for over 6 months the tenant was without a smoke alarm.

It is no defence that the landlord was unaware. It was the landlord’s responsibility alone to ensure that there was a compliant smoke alarm from the start of the tenancy.

Smoke alarms go to the heart of tenant safety. Taking account of the section 109 RTA factors I award the tenant exemplary damages of $600.00 in this case. This takes account of the landlord’s immediate action once he became aware of the missing alarm, but also respects the tenant’s interest and the public interest. Fortunately, there was no effect on this tenant in this case. Had the breach not been rectified, the award would have been much greater. The bond

The tenant paid a bond at the start of the tenancy. The landlord accepts that it was not lodged until 29 October 2024. Mr Glen said there was a communication issue between him and his wife but accepted that the tenant had enquired about whether the bond had been lodged.

Mr Glen said he and his wife had other tenancies managed professionally; this was the first tenancy they managed themselves.

Failing to lodge the bond within the statutory time frame (23 working-days after receiving it) is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to $1,500.00.

I award the tenant exemplary damages of $100.00 for the landlord’s delay in lodging the bond. That was against her interests and the public interest. She was entitled to know that her bond was protected. It also recognises that the landlord was effectively a first-time landlord. Any future failure to lodge a bond within time would likely result in a much higher award of exemplary damages. The absence of a stove/oven

The tenant said there was no stove/oven in the premises. The premises were newly redeveloped before the tenancy started and intended to be used for short term accommodation. Following an agreement with the tenant’s previous employer the premises were offered as a residential tenancy. The landlord said they were fully consented for that use.

The tenant knew from the start of the tenancy about the lay-out of the kitchen. The landlord purchased a convection microwave, and the tenant has a double element to use, although she says it is not intended for long-term use.

The landlord said that there was no intention to instal an oven as the kitchen would require extensive reconfiguration and the installation of an extractor fan. When I asked the tenant to comment on that she said that it was not her problem; it was not for her to find a solution. She accepted that the premises had not been misrepresented to her.

The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) set out in Regulation 5(1)(b) the minimum standards for a kitchen/kitchenette. Regulation 7(2)(b) provides that there must be an adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food both by boiling and by baking.

Neither party addressed these regulations in their submissions. The tenant was offered a convection microwave. She has chosen to use her own.

A Google search of ‘convection microwave’ says: A convection microwave is great for grilling, baking, roasting, browning, and crisping food.

That description would appear to meet the HIR Regulation 7(2)(b) requirement of an adequate means of preparing food.

The tenant has not proved any breach by the landlord. I make no award of compensation nor any work order requiring the landlord to install an oven/cooktop. Breaches of quiet enjoyment/privacy

The tenant said that quests from the main accommodation house sometimes approached her unit, looked through the windows and on occasion entered her premises. As well, in the early hours some guests would talk loudly and shine their car lights through her windows.

[Location] is a well-known ‘[redacted] location. It attracts tourists for that very reason.

The short stay visitors in the main house who cause this nuisance are not the landlord’s tenants. Section 5 RTA excludes some tenancies from the operation of the legislation. Section 5(1)(k) RTA excludes a tenancy where the premises are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation ordinarily for periods less than 28 days at a time.

So, the visitors in the main house are not the landlord’s ‘other tenants’ and therefore do not fall under the section 45(1)(e) RTA injunction that the landlord ensure they do not disturb this tenant.

Under section 38 RTA the landlord has a responsibility not to permit any interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The landlord has taken reasonable actions by providing additional car parking (at a cost of $19,550.00) and installing a privacy screen. Mr Glen said he was happy to install signage.

This is not a situation where the Tribunal need intervene. Due to the nature of her employment the tenant would have been aware of the issues particular to the tenancy when she took it up. Visitors will naturally return late at night or in the early hours after observing the [redacted]; that is the reason for their visit.

The suggestion of signage and discussions with the manager of the main lodging (the tenant’s employer) should enable a solution to be found in so far as one can be.

Ultimately however, the tenant might have to accept that this tenancy is not the right fit for her. She cannot expect the Tribunal to place sanctions on the landlord in the running of its accommodation business in a designated tourist area. The landlord’s belief that these premises are best suited to short term tourist accommodation rather than to a residential tenancy is probably right. A breach of privacy by the landlord with the tenant’s employer

The tenant is concerned that the landlord talks about tenancy matters with her employer. To some extent that is inevitable since her employer manages the landlord’s short-term accommodation business.

Mr Glen assured the Tribunal that he does not talk about any matters personal to the tenant, but he did need to discuss parking and other issues the tenant raised. I accept that. This is not a matter that the Tribunal can address. Market rent determination

The tenant considers that her rent is too high. She referred to information from the bonds collected by Tenancy Services which show a range between $205.00 per week (lower quartile) to $255.00 (upper quartile). The tenant pays $340.00 per week, recently increased to $370.00 per week. She has failed to pay the increased rent amount for which the landlord seeks $450.00.

The landlord produced a rental appraisal by a registered valuer dated 25 September 2019 that refers to a rent of $350.00 per week for one-bedroom units. Mr Glen said a verbal appraisal by [real estate company] in preparation for a possible sale was around $400.00 per week. The sales agent emailed the tenant and confirmed that rents were up to $290.00 per room with utilities (a bedroom in a shared house) not a self-contained unit. He suggested a rent of $370.00 including utilities (not gas). He said that was ‘in line with discussions he had been having with other agencies’.

The Tenancy Services website shows a range for the 6-month period ending November 2024 between $223.00 and $289.00. That appears to be per room.

The tenant does not rent just a room. She rents a one-bedroom self-contained unit which includes utilities – internet and power. So, the Tenancy Services bond data might not be a direct comparison, nor is it intended as a statement of market rent. It is useful information, but not solely determinative.

The registered valuer’s report the landlord produced is dated September 2019, so is more than 5 years old. But it still has some evidential value. The [real estate company] assessment is more recent – 12 September 2024.

The onus here is on the tenant to prove that her rent exceeds market rent by a substantial amount. Given the inclusion of utilities, and the absence of a recent real estate appraisal arranged by the tenant or a valuer’s report, I do not find that she had proved a case for a market rent determination for a lesser amount than she pays. Landlord claims

The landlord seeks payment for unpaid gas and for unpaid rent. I cannot address those matters in the absence of a landlord application and the payment of a filing fee. Result

The landlord will pay the tenant exemplary damages of $700.00 together with the filing fee - $727.00 in total.

The remainder of the tenant’s claims are dismissed. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought a name suppression order. She is entitled to name suppression as her application has been successful to some extent.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5031351 — net $727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: delay in lodging bond	$100.00	delay in lodging bond
Exemplary damages: delay in providing a compliant smoke alarm	$600.00	delay in providing a compliant smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$727.00