What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343849 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 5343849?

Compensation: Manhole: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Ventilation: $1,925.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343849?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13386037-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343849 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 5343849?

Compensation: Manhole: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Ventilation: $1,925.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343849?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13386037-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

254 Buckland Road, Ormondville, RD 7, Ormondville 4977 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343849 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343849 — net $2,903.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Smoke alarms	$750.00	Smoke alarms
Compensation: Ventilation	$1,925.00	Ventilation
Compensation: Manhole	$200.00	Manhole
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,903.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,903.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
For Homes (Nz) Limited is to pay [The applicant/s] the sum of $2,903.00 immediately as calculated in the table below:
The claims for breach of Healthy Homes Standards draught stopping and moisture ingress and maintenance/repair of the kitchen shelves are dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms [A] represented the tenants and Ms Holdaway represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for: a. release of the bond; b. compensation for: i. having to instal the smoke alarms ii. lack of bathroom ventilation iii. draughts in the lounge windows iv. rotting kitchen shelving v. leaks in the bedroom.
The landlord seeks compensation of $700 for cleaning, rubbish removal and lawns following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on each party to produce the evidence to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The tenancy ran from 4 May 2022 to 8 June 2025. At the start of the tenancy, there was a different property manager. By mid-2023, Ms Holdaway was involved in the management of the property. Smoke alarms
The tenants say that when they moved into the property, there were no smoke alarms installed. There were three smoke alarm units on the bench, with instructions to put them in the kitchen, lounge and hallway.
The installation of smoke alarms in residential tenancies is covered by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 (the Smoke Alarm Regulations) and section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The installation of the alarms is the responsibility of the landlord, 1 and they must be installed in bedrooms or within 3 metres of the entrance to each bedroom. 2
The landlord’s failure to instal the smoke alarms in accordance with the Smoke Alarm Regulations is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200 are payable. 3 The tenants have not sought exemplary damages, but they should be compensated, taking into account that they were put to the inconvenience of installing the smoke alarms, that they were given incorrect 1 See Subpart 1 of the Smoke Alarms Regulations. 2 See clause 5(6) of the Smoke Alarms Regulations. 3 See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act. instructions, and their safety was compromised. I have decided that $750 is reasonable compensation. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants claim 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] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS: a. ventilation standard. b. draught-stopping standard c. moisture ingress standard.
This tenancy began on 4 May 2022 and so it was required to comply with all HHS within 90 days of the tenancy.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. The tenants did not seek exemplary damages, but asked for compensation. Ventilation
In May 2022, at the start of the tenancy, the tenants asked for an extractor fan in the bathroom. The property manager at that time replied to a text, saying that they could not have an extractor fan because there was no soffit. 4
The tenants persisted with the request for the extractor fan. In a message dated 5 May 2023, Ms A said that the bathroom needed an extractor fan by law and even leaving the window and door open, the bathroom was constantly getting mouldy and the door was sticking, needing a shoulder barge to open it.
An extractor fan was then installed in June 2023.
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Regulation 24 of the HHS provides for an exemption if an extractor fan is not reasonably practicable to install. The fact that the fan was later installed in 2023 indicates that the property was not exempt. In 2022 the property manager was under the impression that this property was exempt but had no statement from any electrician in 2022 to that effect. Therefore, the landlord has not established that the ventilation system was not required by law before June 2023. 4 The underside of an eave.
The tenants sought compensation of $2,887.00 being 15% of their rent for 55 weeks.
Ms A said that although there was a window in the bathroom, it would not stay open. She advised the landlord in her email of May 2023 that they were bleaching the bathroom to get rid of the mould, but it would return quickly, and that the door was hard to open because of the dampness.
Ms A said that one of the tenants has an immune disorder and the dampness and mould affected him.
I find that compensation is warranted. There was a direct impact on the tenants because of this breach of the HHS and the landlord was aware from the start of the tenancy that the tenants wanted ventilation. I find a 10% rent reduction is appropriate. That is $35 x 55 weeks, which comes to $1,925.00. Draught-stopping
The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
During the tenancy some gaps developed around the four lounge windows. Because of movement with the windows, the latches would not lock in place. A contractor was sent out and repaired three of the windows. He could not fix the fourth one.
There is no evidence that the property did not comply with the draught-stopping standard at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, this is more likely a maintenance issue than a HHS one.
The landlord responded to the request to fix the windows. Although there may remain a gap in one window, the tenants have provided no photographs to enable the Tribunal to assess the situation. Therefore the tenant has not established that there has been a failure to comply with HHS or a failure to repair or maintain the premises. Moisture ingress
The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenants provided no evidence of breach of this standard and so this claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain
The tenants seek compensation for a failure to maintain the premises. There were several issues during the tenancy. However, the ones pursued at the hearing were: a. leaks in the ceiling in one bedroom b. kitchen shelving under the bench.
I add that the evidence to support a claim that the landlord failed to maintain the property in relation to the other issues was weak. There were no photos or a chronology of timeframes showing when matters were brought to the landlord’s attention and when they were addressed. It appears that most matters were addressed reasonably promptly.
Under section 45, the landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
There is an opening in the side of the house into the ceiling area. This has been boarded up, but at the start of the tenancy, the boards were broken. This was fixed soon after the tenants moved in, but a board fell off again. The tenant said that this caused leaks in the bedroom.
The correspondence shows that on 5 May 2023, the tenant contacted the landlord asking when things were going to be fixed. At the same time as asking about the bathroom extractor fan, she said: The manhole above the main bedroom, which has previously been fixed, broke again months ago which we notified you about straight away. This has led to birds living in the roof and cracks appearing in the ceiling after the cyclone and have progressively been getting worse.
The tenant was unsure exactly when they first notified the landlord of this second issue with the manhole, but according to the email, it had been “months ago”. Because Ms Holdaway had not been managing the property earlier, she was unable to dispute or confirm this recollection.
I find it is more likely than not, that the landlord had been notified of the further damage before Cyclone Gabrielle, which was in January 2023.
The message does not specifically refer to leaking and the tenant has provided no evidence such as photos of the ceiling showing leaking. However, I accept that the hole in the manhole entrance would have led to birds entering the roof and would have exposed the roof cavity to weather.
The landlord did not take adequate steps to maintain or repair the property. I accept that the presence of birds and cracks in the ceiling would have affected the tenants’ enjoyment of the property. Because the tenant has not provided details of dates, I have fixed a nominal amount of $200 for inconvenience caused by gaps in the manhole.
The other issue was a damaged shelf under the kitchen sink. Because of previous leaks, the chipboard had swollen. When a tradesman visited, he said that in order to replace the boards, the whole kitchen unit would need to be replaced. Therefore the boards remained.
The tenant said that the problem with the state of the shelf was that it was mouldy. She provided no photographs of the shelving.
The landlord had provided a copy of the exit inspection report. From the photographs in that report, it is difficult to discern any mould or assess the state of the shelves. The tenant has not established that compensation is required for the shelves. The landlord’s claims
The landlord seeks $700 from the bond. Ms Holdaway said that at the end of the tenancy, the owners took over the tenancy. They told her that they had discounted the new tenants two weeks’ rent for their time spent cleaning and tidying up the premises.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 5
Ms Holdaway produced an exit inspection report which shows that the lawns needed mowing, and some rubbish was left. She emailed the tenant on 13 June outlining what was needed, including some vacuuming and cleaning.
Looking at the photographs, I consider that some work was required. However, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established a loss requiring compensation. Usually, the landlord would submit invoices for payment to a third party or an itemised account of the time the owners themselves have spent getting the property ready for a new tenant. The only evidence of the owner’s loss is Ms Holdaway’s oral statement to the Tribunal that she was told last year that the rent for the new tenants had been discounted.
The landlords have not established their loss and so no compensation is ordered. The claim for compensation is dismissed. 5 See section 40(1)(e).
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and they are entitled to name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343849 — net $2,903.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Smoke alarms	$750.00	Smoke alarms
Compensation: Ventilation	$1,925.00	Ventilation
Compensation: Manhole	$200.00	Manhole
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,903.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,903.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
For Homes (Nz) Limited is to pay [The applicant/s] the sum of $2,903.00 immediately as calculated in the table below:
The claims for breach of Healthy Homes Standards draught stopping and moisture ingress and maintenance/repair of the kitchen shelves are dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms [A] represented the tenants and Ms Holdaway represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for: a. release of the bond; b. compensation for: i. having to instal the smoke alarms ii. lack of bathroom ventilation iii. draughts in the lounge windows iv. rotting kitchen shelving v. leaks in the bedroom.
The landlord seeks compensation of $700 for cleaning, rubbish removal and lawns following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on each party to produce the evidence to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The tenancy ran from 4 May 2022 to 8 June 2025. At the start of the tenancy, there was a different property manager. By mid-2023, Ms Holdaway was involved in the management of the property. Smoke alarms
The tenants say that when they moved into the property, there were no smoke alarms installed. There were three smoke alarm units on the bench, with instructions to put them in the kitchen, lounge and hallway.
The installation of smoke alarms in residential tenancies is covered by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016 (the Smoke Alarm Regulations) and section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The installation of the alarms is the responsibility of the landlord, 1 and they must be installed in bedrooms or within 3 metres of the entrance to each bedroom. 2
The landlord’s failure to instal the smoke alarms in accordance with the Smoke Alarm Regulations is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200 are payable. 3 The tenants have not sought exemplary damages, but they should be compensated, taking into account that they were put to the inconvenience of installing the smoke alarms, that they were given incorrect 1 See Subpart 1 of the Smoke Alarms Regulations. 2 See clause 5(6) of the Smoke Alarms Regulations. 3 See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act. instructions, and their safety was compromised. I have decided that $750 is reasonable compensation. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants claim 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] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS: a. ventilation standard. b. draught-stopping standard c. moisture ingress standard.
This tenancy began on 4 May 2022 and so it was required to comply with all HHS within 90 days of the tenancy.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. The tenants did not seek exemplary damages, but asked for compensation. Ventilation
In May 2022, at the start of the tenancy, the tenants asked for an extractor fan in the bathroom. The property manager at that time replied to a text, saying that they could not have an extractor fan because there was no soffit. 4
The tenants persisted with the request for the extractor fan. In a message dated 5 May 2023, Ms A said that the bathroom needed an extractor fan by law and even leaving the window and door open, the bathroom was constantly getting mouldy and the door was sticking, needing a shoulder barge to open it.
An extractor fan was then installed in June 2023.
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Regulation 24 of the HHS provides for an exemption if an extractor fan is not reasonably practicable to install. The fact that the fan was later installed in 2023 indicates that the property was not exempt. In 2022 the property manager was under the impression that this property was exempt but had no statement from any electrician in 2022 to that effect. Therefore, the landlord has not established that the ventilation system was not required by law before June 2023. 4 The underside of an eave.
The tenants sought compensation of $2,887.00 being 15% of their rent for 55 weeks.
Ms A said that although there was a window in the bathroom, it would not stay open. She advised the landlord in her email of May 2023 that they were bleaching the bathroom to get rid of the mould, but it would return quickly, and that the door was hard to open because of the dampness.
Ms A said that one of the tenants has an immune disorder and the dampness and mould affected him.
I find that compensation is warranted. There was a direct impact on the tenants because of this breach of the HHS and the landlord was aware from the start of the tenancy that the tenants wanted ventilation. I find a 10% rent reduction is appropriate. That is $35 x 55 weeks, which comes to $1,925.00. Draught-stopping
The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
During the tenancy some gaps developed around the four lounge windows. Because of movement with the windows, the latches would not lock in place. A contractor was sent out and repaired three of the windows. He could not fix the fourth one.
There is no evidence that the property did not comply with the draught-stopping standard at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, this is more likely a maintenance issue than a HHS one.
The landlord responded to the request to fix the windows. Although there may remain a gap in one window, the tenants have provided no photographs to enable the Tribunal to assess the situation. Therefore the tenant has not established that there has been a failure to comply with HHS or a failure to repair or maintain the premises. Moisture ingress
The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenants provided no evidence of breach of this standard and so this claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain
The tenants seek compensation for a failure to maintain the premises. There were several issues during the tenancy. However, the ones pursued at the hearing were: a. leaks in the ceiling in one bedroom b. kitchen shelving under the bench.
I add that the evidence to support a claim that the landlord failed to maintain the property in relation to the other issues was weak. There were no photos or a chronology of timeframes showing when matters were brought to the landlord’s attention and when they were addressed. It appears that most matters were addressed reasonably promptly.
Under section 45, the landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
There is an opening in the side of the house into the ceiling area. This has been boarded up, but at the start of the tenancy, the boards were broken. This was fixed soon after the tenants moved in, but a board fell off again. The tenant said that this caused leaks in the bedroom.
The correspondence shows that on 5 May 2023, the tenant contacted the landlord asking when things were going to be fixed. At the same time as asking about the bathroom extractor fan, she said: The manhole above the main bedroom, which has previously been fixed, broke again months ago which we notified you about straight away. This has led to birds living in the roof and cracks appearing in the ceiling after the cyclone and have progressively been getting worse.
The tenant was unsure exactly when they first notified the landlord of this second issue with the manhole, but according to the email, it had been “months ago”. Because Ms Holdaway had not been managing the property earlier, she was unable to dispute or confirm this recollection.
I find it is more likely than not, that the landlord had been notified of the further damage before Cyclone Gabrielle, which was in January 2023.
The message does not specifically refer to leaking and the tenant has provided no evidence such as photos of the ceiling showing leaking. However, I accept that the hole in the manhole entrance would have led to birds entering the roof and would have exposed the roof cavity to weather.
The landlord did not take adequate steps to maintain or repair the property. I accept that the presence of birds and cracks in the ceiling would have affected the tenants’ enjoyment of the property. Because the tenant has not provided details of dates, I have fixed a nominal amount of $200 for inconvenience caused by gaps in the manhole.
The other issue was a damaged shelf under the kitchen sink. Because of previous leaks, the chipboard had swollen. When a tradesman visited, he said that in order to replace the boards, the whole kitchen unit would need to be replaced. Therefore the boards remained.
The tenant said that the problem with the state of the shelf was that it was mouldy. She provided no photographs of the shelving.
The landlord had provided a copy of the exit inspection report. From the photographs in that report, it is difficult to discern any mould or assess the state of the shelves. The tenant has not established that compensation is required for the shelves. The landlord’s claims
The landlord seeks $700 from the bond. Ms Holdaway said that at the end of the tenancy, the owners took over the tenancy. They told her that they had discounted the new tenants two weeks’ rent for their time spent cleaning and tidying up the premises.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 5
Ms Holdaway produced an exit inspection report which shows that the lawns needed mowing, and some rubbish was left. She emailed the tenant on 13 June outlining what was needed, including some vacuuming and cleaning.
Looking at the photographs, I consider that some work was required. However, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established a loss requiring compensation. Usually, the landlord would submit invoices for payment to a third party or an itemised account of the time the owners themselves have spent getting the property ready for a new tenant. The only evidence of the owner’s loss is Ms Holdaway’s oral statement to the Tribunal that she was told last year that the rent for the new tenants had been discounted.
The landlords have not established their loss and so no compensation is ordered. The claim for compensation is dismissed. 5 See section 40(1)(e).
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and they are entitled to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343849 — Smoke alarms at 254 Buckland Road, Ormondville, RD 7, Ormondville 4977

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343849 — Smoke alarms at 254 Buckland Road, Ormondville, RD 7, Ormondville 4977

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