How much money was awarded in case 5311021?

Property Damage: $1,460.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $938.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5311021?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5311021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5311021?

Property Damage: $1,460.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $938.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5311021?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5311021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

76B Battery Road, Ahuriri, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5311021 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5311021 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 5311021 — net $671.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$938.57		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: fail to provide HH information		$150.00	fail to provide HH information
Compensation: repair works		$1,460.00	repair works
Total award	$938.57	$1,610.00
Net award		$671.43
Bond		$2,640.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$671.43

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s], immediately.

Chris John Hall and Shona Hall must pay [The tenant/s] $671.43 immediately, as below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

The landlords were assisted by Mr Birrell, the landlord’s agent, [redacted]. Mr Birrell also gave evidence. Introduction

The tenancy began in August 2021. Initially it was for a one year fixed term. After that it continued as a periodic tenancy.

The landlord gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy, effective 10 June 2025.

On 5 May, Mr Hall txt [The tenant/s], “I have received information indicating that your vacation of 76B Battery Rd. is underway. Can you please notify me as to the date you intend to cease renting the above property. At this point it remains as 10 June 25 as per the tenancy termination notice you've received. I'm happy to negotiate an earlier vacating if that is what you want. Please notify ASAP.”

The tenant then notified Mr Hall that he vacated on 6 May.

Mr Hall advised, “I will speak with Shona Hall who is the principal owner of the property as you are aware and see if she will agree with the 6th May as the vacating date.”

Later that day Mr Hall confirmed, “I have contacted Shona and she has agreed to 6 May 25 as the tenancy termination date. As such you owe 9 nights’ rent ie. $938.00.”

Because [The tenant/s] disputed paying rent to that date due to other issues, Mr Hall then claimed rent through to 27 May, 21 days from when [The tenant/s] confirmed he had vacated.

[The tenant/s] then counter claimed for: a. not being provided Healthy Homes compliance information; b. having to accommodate repair work at the premises ; c. breach of his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlords are correct that under the RTA, if [The tenant/s] wanted to end the tenancy before 10 June, 21 days’ notice was required.

However, that requirement was waived by the landlords and was superseded by the clearly recorded agreement that the tenancy could end on 6 May.

Mr Hall characterised that as an offer by the landlords which the landlords were free to withdraw.

If find that the correspondence proves an agreement between the parties that the tenancy would end on 6 May, which both parties should be held to. Had [The tenant/s] been informed that 6 May was not agreed to as the termination date, he was entitled to have remained occupying the premises until 27 May.

There is no dispute that rent was paid to 27 April 2025. Rent is owed from 28 April to 6 May. Did the landlords fail to meet Healthy Homes standards and provide HH information?

The Healthy Homes statement in the agreement notes that there is no extractor in the downstairs bathroom. That would breach the Healthy Homes ventilation standard, unless an exemption applies.

An exemption applies if a bathroom does not have an extractor at the start of the tenancy, it is not reasonably practicable to install one, it was lawful when built because it met, and still meets, ventilation requirements at the time 1 .

The landlords had a builder and electrician inspect. They confirmed that it was not reasonably practicable to install an extractor and that with security stays fixed to it, the bathroom window would provide adequate ventilation.

In the absence of contrary evidence, I do not find it proved that the landlords breached their obligation to ensure Healthy Homes compliance for ventilation in the downstairs bathroom.

The tenant had requested from the landlord an electronic copy of the of the tenancy agreement and of the Healthy Homes assessment report. No such report had been obtained by the landlord.

The landlords say that a hard copy of the agreement, which included the required Healthy Holmes statement, was provided to the tenancy address, meeting the landlords’ obligations.

There is no requirement that a landlord provide a copy of the agreement and Heathy Homes statement in a particular format.

A landlord must retain certain documents during and for 12 months after a termination of the tenancy including, “....any reports or assessments by a professional tradesperson of work that is carried out or is required in relation to a premises that relates to the landlord’s compliance with section 45.....” 2

If a tenant requests any of that information, a landlord must provide it within 21 days. Failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded. 3

The landlords were aware that the tenant wanted information about the premises’ compliance with Healthy Home standards but did not provide the relevant information they held. That amounted to an unlawful act. 1 R.24 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 2 S. 123A RTA 3 S.45(1AC) RTA

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. 4 I find that the breach was intentional.

The correspondence shows that although [The tenant/s] was not provided those specific reports from the contractors, he was kept fully informed by the landlords about what was being done in the downstairs bathroom and their reasons for deciding that installation of an extractor was not necessary or practical.

The landlords’ breach was more technical than something that substantively misinformed the tenant.

There is nevertheless a public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with those legal requirements and I find that it would be just to make a small award of exemplary damages.

Should the tenant be compensated for building works at the premises?

The front deck at the premises required replacement. The downstairs bathroom needed to be repaired.

The bathroom work was carried out over the course of a month. The tenant had access to other facilities in the premises.

The deck work was carried out between 17 February 2023 and 22 July 2023. The parties disagree about the extent to which that work impacted on [The tenant/s]’s use and enjoyment of the premises.

The landlords say that the front deck was made usable after a couple of weeks work, though without the covering membrane installed. Installation of the membrane took another week after delays in getting materials caused by the aftermath of cyclone Gabriel.

[The tenant/s] says that the intrusion was significant and that the deck was not really usable for the whole period from when the work began, to when it was completed. He notes that the compressor units situated on the deck, which drive the heat pump in the bedroom, had to be removed, meaning there was no heating/ air conditioning in the bedroom while the work was done.

He says that as well as the inability to use the deck the presence of the tradespeople, equipment and mess affected his use of the premises.

It is difficult to arithmetically calculate the effect of the bathroom and deck work on [The tenant/s]’s use of the premises. 4 S. 109(3) RTA

Nevertheless, the evidence proves, on balance, that the repair work undertaken, significantly impacted [The tenant/s]’s use and enjoyment of the premises, while he continued to pay full rent.

Having regard to the parties’ evidence, I find that compensation equal to two weeks’ rent would be just.

The landlord says that the [The tenant/s] has already been compensated because the rent was not increased for some time. There is no evidence of an agreement about that. The Tribunal cannot assume that the landlord would have been entitled to increase the rent. That would depend on other factors that there is no evidence about. Was the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises breached?

[The tenant/s] says that on 22 August 2024, without prior notice, Mr Birrell barged his way into the premises while [The tenant/s]’s son was there. A text to Mr Hall from [The tenant/s] on that date, records his concern about that.

Mr Hall says that the visit was made with a builder, after due notice had been given, to assess issues about the premises raised by [The tenant/s] in a phone conversation with Mr Hall.

[The tenant/s] says that the incident he complains about was when Mr Birrell returned to the premises after that initial inspection with the builder. Mr Birrell’s evidence is that he did not make that second visit to the premises.

[The tenant/s] says there was another breach when Mr Birrell came to the premises without prior notice on 30 April 2025 and hassled his son. Video footage is provided in evidence.

Mr Birrell says that an inspection of the premises had been carried out, after proper notice was given. Afterwards, he returned to discuss what was found during the inspection, with [The tenant/s]’s son.

In addition, [The tenant/s] says that because Mr Birrell lived next door, there were constant interactions and monitoring by Mr Birrell that interfered with his peace and privacy.

These are claims brought by the tenant. He must provide evidence that proves those claims on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).

[The tenant/s]’s txt to Mr Hall on 28 April is evidence of [The tenant/s]’s understanding of what happened at the time. Mr Birrell has given direct evidence that he did not make the visit complained of. That direct evidence must be given more weight. I do not find the tenant’s claim proved.

The visit to the property by Mr Birrell on 30 April 2025 was unwise, unnecessary, and outside the inspection, which was the purpose for which the notice of entry had been given.

The video evidence does not show Mr Birrell acting in a threatening or intimidating way, although he should not have been there and should have left when it was clear his unannounced visit was not welcome. That breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

That is the only occasion on which a breach of [The tenant/s]’s right to quiet enjoyment has been proved. Of itself, I do not find that it constitutes a loss for which compensation should be paid.

Because each party has had claims upheld, no order is made about the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5311021 — net $671.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$938.57		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: fail to provide HH information		$150.00	fail to provide HH information
Compensation: repair works		$1,460.00	repair works
Total award	$938.57	$1,610.00
Net award		$671.43
Bond		$2,640.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$671.43