What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164756 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 5164756?

Compensation: Heating – Healthy Home…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Improper Notice to Ter…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164756?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164756?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11994558-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164756 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 5164756?

Compensation: Heating – Healthy Home…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Improper Notice to Ter…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164756?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164756?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11994558-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5164756 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164756 — net $1,777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Heating – Healthy Homes	$1,000.00	Heating – Healthy Homes
Compensation: Improper Notice to Terminate	$750.00	Improper Notice to Terminate
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,777.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Graham & Noeline Milmine must pay [The tenant/s] $1,777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Heating – Healthy Homes $1,000.00 Compensation: Improper Notice to Terminate $750.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $1,777.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,777.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Representatives of LJ Hooker attended for the landlord. They attended as Mr & Mrs Milmine’s authorised agents and representatives.
There is a note on the Tribunal file that Mr Milmine and his daughter had contacted the Tribunal and advised that the tenancy was handled by LJ Hooker and LJ Hooker would respond to the application.
In fact, the tenancy started on 1 March 2023 and was managed by Mr and Mrs Milmine directly until August 2024 (when LJ Hooker was appointed as property manager). The issues in this application arose from the Milmine’s actions and their failure to attend the hearing, and appointing LJ Hooker to respond to the claims, has increased the tenant’s sense of grievance.
Mr and Mrs Milmine were the grantors of the tenancy and are the landlords. LJ Hooker, as their agents, did not assume any direct liability to the tenant. Condition of the Property, Repairs and Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings health and safety.
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/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating and ventilation standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This tenancy commenced on 1 March 2023, so the compliance date was 29 June 2023.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the 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 ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant had raised concerns that the property was cold and damp. There was some evidence of mould at the property. The tenant says that, in response to her concerns about condensation on a bedroom wall, Mr Milmine suggested this was caused by her son’s greasy hair. The tenant found this comment dismissive and offensive.
The tenant issued a 14-day notice to the Milmines in August 2024 regarding the cold and damp and other issues. LJ Hooker was then appointed as property manager.
Following their first inspection of the premises, LJ Hooker immediately recognised that there was no heating in the main living room. There was a heat pump in the dining room; but not in the living area which was divided by a door. LJ Hooker recommended removing the door, provided the dining room heat pump could provide sufficient heating capacity for the bigger/open area.
The door was removed, and the landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Assessment report. The report stated that the premises complied with all Healthy Homes Standards, except in relation to kitchen extraction which was not deducted to outside.
The evidence clearly establishes that the premises did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to heating and extraction for more than a year after the due date for compliance. Those failures are consistent with the tenant’s evidence in relation to cold and damp at the premises. I award the tenant compensation for loss of amenity of $1,000.
The landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to $7,200. A landlord should be aware of their statutory obligations. There has been widespread publicity regarding timing and implementation of the standards. However, on this occasion, I accept that the failure was not intentional but arose from genuine ignorance and lack of knowledge by the landlords. They immediately accepted LJ Hooker’s advice to have the premises assessed and carry out any necessary work. For those reasons, I decline to award exemplary damages.
The tenant raised other repair and maintenance issues including delays in repairing the oven and toilet, being told to remove the cistern lid to flush the toilet, drainage around the property and leaks in the garage. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord breached its obligations in relation to those matters. Those claims are dismissed. Notice to Terminate
On 2 September 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 5 November 2024. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory and/or unlawful.
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: [I]n giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
There are four issues to consider: a. Was the termination notice valid; does it comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. If so, has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
At the time this notice was issued landlords could not give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Section 51(1)(a) provided that: A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it is a mere possibility or one of a range of options available.
On 29 August, Mr Milmine advised LJ Hooker that his granddaughter was looking for somewhere to live and had enquired about these premises. On 2 September, he instructed LJ Hooker to issue a notice to terminate the tenancy.
Shortly after the tenancy ended, Mr Milmine’s granddaughter decided not to move into the premises. The only evidence provided to me regarding the intention to move in and the decision not to, was a text message from Mr Milmine’s granddaughter on 11 November (after this tenancy ended) stating: “Hey Grandad, just thought I would let you know that my plans have changed and no longer need to use your flat in town...”
Mr Milmine did not attend the hearing, so I did not hear from him on this issue and could not assess any direct evidence. There is no corroborating evidence, from before the notice was issued or before this tenancy ended, showing that the granddaughter did need the premises or intended to move into them for more than 90 days. I find that the notice to terminate the tenancy was not valid.
The tenant was put to the expense of moving and experienced the stress and inconvenience of having to find a new home. She did not provide evidence of the costs incurred, so I award $750 for inconvenience.
Given the finding above, I am not required to consider the other factors listed at paragraph 22. However, I note that the application was not made within 28 days of the notice being issued, so I could not make an order under s54. For that reason, the claim that the notice was retaliatory is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with her claims, I award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and grant her request for suppression of her details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164756 — net $1,777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Heating – Healthy Homes	$1,000.00	Heating – Healthy Homes
Compensation: Improper Notice to Terminate	$750.00	Improper Notice to Terminate
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,777.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Graham & Noeline Milmine must pay [The tenant/s] $1,777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Heating – Healthy Homes $1,000.00 Compensation: Improper Notice to Terminate $750.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $1,777.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,777.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Representatives of LJ Hooker attended for the landlord. They attended as Mr & Mrs Milmine’s authorised agents and representatives.
There is a note on the Tribunal file that Mr Milmine and his daughter had contacted the Tribunal and advised that the tenancy was handled by LJ Hooker and LJ Hooker would respond to the application.
In fact, the tenancy started on 1 March 2023 and was managed by Mr and Mrs Milmine directly until August 2024 (when LJ Hooker was appointed as property manager). The issues in this application arose from the Milmine’s actions and their failure to attend the hearing, and appointing LJ Hooker to respond to the claims, has increased the tenant’s sense of grievance.
Mr and Mrs Milmine were the grantors of the tenancy and are the landlords. LJ Hooker, as their agents, did not assume any direct liability to the tenant. Condition of the Property, Repairs and Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings health and safety.
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/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating and ventilation standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This tenancy commenced on 1 March 2023, so the compliance date was 29 June 2023.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the 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 ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant had raised concerns that the property was cold and damp. There was some evidence of mould at the property. The tenant says that, in response to her concerns about condensation on a bedroom wall, Mr Milmine suggested this was caused by her son’s greasy hair. The tenant found this comment dismissive and offensive.
The tenant issued a 14-day notice to the Milmines in August 2024 regarding the cold and damp and other issues. LJ Hooker was then appointed as property manager.
Following their first inspection of the premises, LJ Hooker immediately recognised that there was no heating in the main living room. There was a heat pump in the dining room; but not in the living area which was divided by a door. LJ Hooker recommended removing the door, provided the dining room heat pump could provide sufficient heating capacity for the bigger/open area.
The door was removed, and the landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Assessment report. The report stated that the premises complied with all Healthy Homes Standards, except in relation to kitchen extraction which was not deducted to outside.
The evidence clearly establishes that the premises did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to heating and extraction for more than a year after the due date for compliance. Those failures are consistent with the tenant’s evidence in relation to cold and damp at the premises. I award the tenant compensation for loss of amenity of $1,000.
The landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to $7,200. A landlord should be aware of their statutory obligations. There has been widespread publicity regarding timing and implementation of the standards. However, on this occasion, I accept that the failure was not intentional but arose from genuine ignorance and lack of knowledge by the landlords. They immediately accepted LJ Hooker’s advice to have the premises assessed and carry out any necessary work. For those reasons, I decline to award exemplary damages.
The tenant raised other repair and maintenance issues including delays in repairing the oven and toilet, being told to remove the cistern lid to flush the toilet, drainage around the property and leaks in the garage. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord breached its obligations in relation to those matters. Those claims are dismissed. Notice to Terminate
On 2 September 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 5 November 2024. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory and/or unlawful.
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: [I]n giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
There are four issues to consider: a. Was the termination notice valid; does it comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. If so, has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
At the time this notice was issued landlords could not give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Section 51(1)(a) provided that: A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it is a mere possibility or one of a range of options available.
On 29 August, Mr Milmine advised LJ Hooker that his granddaughter was looking for somewhere to live and had enquired about these premises. On 2 September, he instructed LJ Hooker to issue a notice to terminate the tenancy.
Shortly after the tenancy ended, Mr Milmine’s granddaughter decided not to move into the premises. The only evidence provided to me regarding the intention to move in and the decision not to, was a text message from Mr Milmine’s granddaughter on 11 November (after this tenancy ended) stating: “Hey Grandad, just thought I would let you know that my plans have changed and no longer need to use your flat in town...”
Mr Milmine did not attend the hearing, so I did not hear from him on this issue and could not assess any direct evidence. There is no corroborating evidence, from before the notice was issued or before this tenancy ended, showing that the granddaughter did need the premises or intended to move into them for more than 90 days. I find that the notice to terminate the tenancy was not valid.
The tenant was put to the expense of moving and experienced the stress and inconvenience of having to find a new home. She did not provide evidence of the costs incurred, so I award $750 for inconvenience.
Given the finding above, I am not required to consider the other factors listed at paragraph 22. However, I note that the application was not made within 28 days of the notice being issued, so I could not make an order under s54. For that reason, the claim that the notice was retaliatory is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with her claims, I award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and grant her request for suppression of her details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164756 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164756 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions