What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5186171 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 5186171?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $6,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5186171?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5186171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11901695-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5186171 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 5186171?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $6,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5186171?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5186171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11901695-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5186171 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5186171 — net $6,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$6,400.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,427.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
New Age Rentals Limited As Agent For Rami Al-Batniji must pay [The tenant/s] $6,427.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants sought compensation for LPG delivery cessation and internet fibre disruption.
By the date of the hearing both matters had been resolved. The compensation claim for historic LPG issues remained for determination, but the tenants acknowledged the internet issue was not a landlord failure and withdrew that claim at the hearing. Background
This tenancy commenced 30 June 2022. Prior to this tenancy the premises was owner-occupied for approximately one year before the owners moved overseas. The appointed agency remains unchanged since commencement.
The premises cooktop and hot water were supplied by LPG. The usual 2x45kg cylinders were in place and resupplied as required by a supplier agreement.
The premises slopes downhill and access to the LPG station was not easy. This became a supply challenge in 2023 when a Workplace safety directive regarding the safe handling of 45kg LPG bottles for domestic deliveries changed the supplier approach to such sites. The site here was deemed too difficult to supply.
I heard from the tenants that they exhausted attempts with six different suppliers to have a regular supply arrangement. During a period of almost 82 weeks they went without a resupply arrangement for the LPG needed at the premises.
Their request for resolution from the landlord went unactioned until recently. This appears to be in part due to agent churn/failure as well as owner direction. The landlord accepted that the delay in resolution was unacceptable. An unsuccessful process was proposed where a family member of the owner would arrange the LPG resupply. The tenants attempted to adopt the process but found the delays in any actioning a problem. I do not consider any such process to be an adequate replacement for a commercial supply agreement.
The solution adopted by the tenants was to use a smaller 9kg bottle in lieu of the larger, unwieldy bottles. I heard they used one 9kg bottle at a time and refilled it as required, or as they could afford. Understandably, the reduced capacity and lack of any failover meant the empty bottle was often announced by the loss function of gas dependant appliances. The safety of using the small bottle was also raised after third-party advice to the tenants. Some suppliers specifically recommend 9kg bottles are not connected to such LPG stations but the tenants could not cite any specific regulation or statue that prohibits such a connection.
I queried why two bottles were not connected (to replicate the failover between bottles available in a two-bottle installation such as here). That would have extended the supply duration and also allowed a timelier swap of bottles to prevent the immediate failure of the one bottle supply as and when it emptied, as experienced by the tenants.
The owner has now arranged for the gas dependant appliances to be replaced by electric equivalents, removing the problems experienced by the tenants since 2023.
The tenants seek compensation for the adverse impact/loss of amenity since the loss of contracted LPG resupply. $100,000 compensation was sought in the application. The law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be” 1 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by tenants, where appropriate.
Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a.The nature of the breach b.The duration of the breach 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15] c.The effect of the breach.
Further, s 38(2) RTA requires 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.
Section 49 RTA requires where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. Discussion
It was not disputed that landlord was made aware of the problem in a timely manner. The prolonged inaction was a failing by both the agency and owner. I consider the owner was, or should have been, aware but was possibly constrained on appropriate remedial action due to their own financial circumstances (a series of invoices for other unexpected, non-tenant, costs were provided). These are of no bearing here. The tenants were paying $1300.00 a week for a large six-bedroom house and had a reasonable expectation of timely attention by the landlord to a significant change such as the loss of a regular and adequate LPG resupply arrangement.
The eventually swap out of related appliances to electricity by the owner is considered a practical solution but also a tacit acknowledgement of the previous constraints on use after LPG suppliers declined to service the premises.
There was some discussion at the hearing regarding the “fix” adopted by the tenants, particularly why a more robust solution using two cylinders was not implemented. I stress this only as I must consider appropriate mitigation as explained above; the underlying problem was not of the tenants making.
I consider the tenants have established grounds for compensation. I have considered both the impacts on them, and the other occupants, as submitted. I have also factored how better mitigation may have diminished the tenant impact. I have considered the available use of the electric oven and the acquisition of benchtop appliances such as an air fryer as alternative forms of cooking but accept that an LPG instant hot water as installed would have been problematic to use as reasonably expected.
As noted above, I must consider the nature, duration, and effect of any landlord breach such as here. It was over 80 weeks before an adequate resolution was implemented, delayed primarily by landlord inaction. The impact on the tenants was not insignificant, and I accept the tenants had diminished use of the premises during this period. I balanced such considerations with the inflated impact on them due to a single 9kg bottle replacement approach. The safety concerns regarding the use of smaller bottles as raised in the application appear to have been a later issue after third-party advice.
Having weighted the above considerations, I have determined a compensation order of $6,4000.00 to the tenants is appropriate. This is effectively a rent refund of slightly over 6% of the weekly rent paid during this extended period. This sum factors in all accepted adverse impacts on the tenants as submitted by them.
As discussed at the hearing, the compensation is ordered as immediately payable, but it is open to the parties to adopt a rent holiday or such as an alternative. Filing fee
As the tenants have been substantially successful, I have returned their filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they has been substantially successful, the tenants’ names and identifying details are ordered suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5186171 — net $6,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$6,400.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,427.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
New Age Rentals Limited As Agent For Rami Al-Batniji must pay [The tenant/s] $6,427.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants sought compensation for LPG delivery cessation and internet fibre disruption.
By the date of the hearing both matters had been resolved. The compensation claim for historic LPG issues remained for determination, but the tenants acknowledged the internet issue was not a landlord failure and withdrew that claim at the hearing. Background
This tenancy commenced 30 June 2022. Prior to this tenancy the premises was owner-occupied for approximately one year before the owners moved overseas. The appointed agency remains unchanged since commencement.
The premises cooktop and hot water were supplied by LPG. The usual 2x45kg cylinders were in place and resupplied as required by a supplier agreement.
The premises slopes downhill and access to the LPG station was not easy. This became a supply challenge in 2023 when a Workplace safety directive regarding the safe handling of 45kg LPG bottles for domestic deliveries changed the supplier approach to such sites. The site here was deemed too difficult to supply.
I heard from the tenants that they exhausted attempts with six different suppliers to have a regular supply arrangement. During a period of almost 82 weeks they went without a resupply arrangement for the LPG needed at the premises.
Their request for resolution from the landlord went unactioned until recently. This appears to be in part due to agent churn/failure as well as owner direction. The landlord accepted that the delay in resolution was unacceptable. An unsuccessful process was proposed where a family member of the owner would arrange the LPG resupply. The tenants attempted to adopt the process but found the delays in any actioning a problem. I do not consider any such process to be an adequate replacement for a commercial supply agreement.
The solution adopted by the tenants was to use a smaller 9kg bottle in lieu of the larger, unwieldy bottles. I heard they used one 9kg bottle at a time and refilled it as required, or as they could afford. Understandably, the reduced capacity and lack of any failover meant the empty bottle was often announced by the loss function of gas dependant appliances. The safety of using the small bottle was also raised after third-party advice to the tenants. Some suppliers specifically recommend 9kg bottles are not connected to such LPG stations but the tenants could not cite any specific regulation or statue that prohibits such a connection.
I queried why two bottles were not connected (to replicate the failover between bottles available in a two-bottle installation such as here). That would have extended the supply duration and also allowed a timelier swap of bottles to prevent the immediate failure of the one bottle supply as and when it emptied, as experienced by the tenants.
The owner has now arranged for the gas dependant appliances to be replaced by electric equivalents, removing the problems experienced by the tenants since 2023.
The tenants seek compensation for the adverse impact/loss of amenity since the loss of contracted LPG resupply. $100,000 compensation was sought in the application. The law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be” 1 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by tenants, where appropriate.
Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a.The nature of the breach b.The duration of the breach 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15] c.The effect of the breach.
Further, s 38(2) RTA requires 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.
Section 49 RTA requires where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. Discussion
It was not disputed that landlord was made aware of the problem in a timely manner. The prolonged inaction was a failing by both the agency and owner. I consider the owner was, or should have been, aware but was possibly constrained on appropriate remedial action due to their own financial circumstances (a series of invoices for other unexpected, non-tenant, costs were provided). These are of no bearing here. The tenants were paying $1300.00 a week for a large six-bedroom house and had a reasonable expectation of timely attention by the landlord to a significant change such as the loss of a regular and adequate LPG resupply arrangement.
The eventually swap out of related appliances to electricity by the owner is considered a practical solution but also a tacit acknowledgement of the previous constraints on use after LPG suppliers declined to service the premises.
There was some discussion at the hearing regarding the “fix” adopted by the tenants, particularly why a more robust solution using two cylinders was not implemented. I stress this only as I must consider appropriate mitigation as explained above; the underlying problem was not of the tenants making.
I consider the tenants have established grounds for compensation. I have considered both the impacts on them, and the other occupants, as submitted. I have also factored how better mitigation may have diminished the tenant impact. I have considered the available use of the electric oven and the acquisition of benchtop appliances such as an air fryer as alternative forms of cooking but accept that an LPG instant hot water as installed would have been problematic to use as reasonably expected.
As noted above, I must consider the nature, duration, and effect of any landlord breach such as here. It was over 80 weeks before an adequate resolution was implemented, delayed primarily by landlord inaction. The impact on the tenants was not insignificant, and I accept the tenants had diminished use of the premises during this period. I balanced such considerations with the inflated impact on them due to a single 9kg bottle replacement approach. The safety concerns regarding the use of smaller bottles as raised in the application appear to have been a later issue after third-party advice.
Having weighted the above considerations, I have determined a compensation order of $6,4000.00 to the tenants is appropriate. This is effectively a rent refund of slightly over 6% of the weekly rent paid during this extended period. This sum factors in all accepted adverse impacts on the tenants as submitted by them.
As discussed at the hearing, the compensation is ordered as immediately payable, but it is open to the parties to adopt a rent holiday or such as an alternative. Filing fee
As the tenants have been substantially successful, I have returned their filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they has been substantially successful, the tenants’ names and identifying details are ordered suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5186171 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5186171 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions