What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315479 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 5315479?

Compensation: $130.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315479?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12523814-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315479 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 5315479?

Compensation: $130.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315479?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12523814-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315479 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315479 — net $158.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of amenity	$130.00	Compensation – loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$158.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$158.00

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video and teleconference. Both agent and owners appeared for the respondent.

The tenants sought compensation after the Healthy Homes Standard compliant main heating source unexpectedly failed. For five weeks during winter the tenants were unable to heat the main living area as they could before. They have a young child.

The landlord had already provided a rent credit of $120.00 towards their additional electricity usage. The tenants sought a further $250.00.

Having heard from all parties, my only criticism would be the lack of proactive steps taken by the landlord to mitigate the impact while the wood burner was replaced. This would typically be something the agent might instigate but that depends on the specific arrangement between it and its principal. The actual time lapsed to remediate reflects what is typical and reasonably expected, especially during a busy seasonal demand period for such work.

While the tenants expressed a financial loss due to high electricity usage, they appeared to underheat the main living arear during this period, with limited alternative heating used. They spoke of health impacts but no direct causation during the reduced heating period was evident.

On balance, I consider the landlord approach has been fair. However, I consider a $50.00 per week refund of rent for the loss of the main heating source is not unreasonable given the landlord failure to provide alternative means of heating as an interim measure (but noting the mixed messages from the tenants regarding this). I have applied the prior $120.00 as already provided to the tenants to leave a balance of $130.00 as final compensation to be ordered. In determining this sum, I have also considered the benefits of the heat pump but also the unused firewood as provisioned by the tenants in anticipation of the wood burner use.

An attempt to settle prior to the conclusion of the hearing failed but did allow both parties to express their thoughts on related matters and concerns going forward. I encourage both to focus on ensuring this tenancy proceeds in what should be a mutually beneficial arrangement. 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.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenants requested suppression in their application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

I also apply my initiative to order suppression of the landlord details. The use of the Tribunal has been sought to determine what, if any further compensation should follow. The landlord has been proactive in remedying the underlying failure. The owners’ approach to compensation for the interim period was understandable and not unreasonable, given the information at hand at that time.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315479 — net $158.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of amenity	$130.00	Compensation – loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$158.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$158.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $158.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video and teleconference. Both agent and owners appeared for the respondent.
The tenants sought compensation after the Healthy Homes Standard compliant main heating source unexpectedly failed. For five weeks during winter the tenants were unable to heat the main living area as they could before. They have a young child.
The landlord had already provided a rent credit of $120.00 towards their additional electricity usage. The tenants sought a further $250.00.
Having heard from all parties, my only criticism would be the lack of proactive steps taken by the landlord to mitigate the impact while the wood burner was replaced. This would typically be something the agent might instigate but that depends on the specific arrangement between it and its principal. The actual time lapsed to remediate reflects what is typical and reasonably expected, especially during a busy seasonal demand period for such work.
While the tenants expressed a financial loss due to high electricity usage, they appeared to underheat the main living arear during this period, with limited alternative heating used. They spoke of health impacts but no direct causation during the reduced heating period was evident.
On balance, I consider the landlord approach has been fair. However, I consider a $50.00 per week refund of rent for the loss of the main heating source is not unreasonable given the landlord failure to provide alternative means of heating as an interim measure (but noting the mixed messages from the tenants regarding this). I have applied the prior $120.00 as already provided to the tenants to leave a balance of $130.00 as final compensation to be ordered. In determining this sum, I have also considered the benefits of the heat pump but also the unused firewood as provisioned by the tenants in anticipation of the wood burner use.
An attempt to settle prior to the conclusion of the hearing failed but did allow both parties to express their thoughts on related matters and concerns going forward. I encourage both to focus on ensuring this tenancy proceeds in what should be a mutually beneficial arrangement. 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.
I also apply my initiative to order suppression of the landlord details. The use of the Tribunal has been sought to determine what, if any further compensation should follow. The landlord has been proactive in remedying the underlying failure. The owners’ approach to compensation for the interim period was understandable and not unreasonable, given the information at hand at that time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315479 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315479 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions