What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4481184?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord but

How much money was awarded in case 4481184?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to remove rubb…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $638.17 awarded to landlord; Reimburse Agreed Cost For Chattels -…: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,170.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4481184?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4481184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9443841-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4481184?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord but

How much money was awarded in case 4481184?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to remove rubb…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $638.17 awarded to landlord; Reimburse Agreed Cost For Chattels -…: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,170.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4481184?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4481184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9443841-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat A, 78 Blenheim Road, Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4481184 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat A, 78 Blenheim Road, Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4481184 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4481184 — net $1,508.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 September 2022 (consent	$1,170.00		Rent arrears to 17 September 2022 (consent
Lock/key replacement	$638.17		Lock/key replacement
Reimburse agreed cost for chattels - drawer and bike	$100.00		Reimburse agreed cost for chattels - drawer and bike
Compensation: failure to remove rubbish from garage		$200.00	failure to remove rubbish from garage
Compensation: failure to adequately repair skylight		$200.00	failure to adequately repair skylight
Total award	$1,908.17	$400.00
Net award	$1,508.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,508.17

Claims and awards for application 4481184 — net $1,508.17 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 17 September 2022 (consent

Amount: $1,170.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 17 September 2022 (consent

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $638.17
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Reimburse agreed cost for chattels - drawer and bike

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Reimburse agreed cost for chattels - drawer and bike

Compensation: failure to remove rubbish from garage

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failure to remove rubbish from garage

Compensation: failure to adequately repair skylight

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Compensation Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord but no order is made as the landlord’s application is only partly successful.
Kyle Douglas Soper and Jane Clode must pay Valmai Hazel Somerville $1,508.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s application for cleaning costs is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for repairing a door and for cleaning out rubbish from a garage is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I have considered the oral evidence they both gave and the documentary evidence they produced.
The hearing today was by way of rehearing of the landlord’s application and included the tenants’ cross application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and for exemplary damages for the alleged failure by the landlord to comply with the Health Homes Standards (HHS). Background
The tenancy started on 16 June 2022. Although only Mr Soper is named as the tenant, the parties agree that Ms Clode was a tenant as well; she signed the tenancy agreement.
I have amended the proceedings to include Ms Clode as a tenant party.
This tenancy ended on 17 September 2022. The following day a new tenancy between the landlord and another tenant started. A copy of that tenancy was produced in evidence.
When the Tribunal first heard the landlord’s application rent arrears were claimed to 22 November 2022. The tenant had not lodged a cross application at that time.
The adjudicator who heard the landlord’s application granted a rehearing on application by the tenant.
The matters were heard afresh today. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation? •Have the tenants proved claims for compensation? •Have the tenants proved that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears to 22 November 2022. However, another tenancy started on 18 September 2022. The landlord said that this tenant (Mr Soper) said he would collect the rent from the new tenant.
The new tenancy agreement does not record Mr Soper as a guarantor of the new tenant’s obligations.
This tenancy ended on 17 September 2022. The landlord can only claim rent from these tenants up to that date.
The tenants accepted the amount of rent arrears as at 17 September 2022. I have made a rent arrears order by consent.

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation?

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant or a landlord for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by a party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenant Mr Soper accepted that he did not return all the keys given to him. He had a statutory responsibility to do so.
The landlord confirmed that the locks were changed and that the quoted amount for lock and key replacement had been paid. I find this claim proved. I award the landlord the cost of lock and key replacement - $638.17.
The landlord withdrew her application for cleaning costs.
I dismiss the landlord’s claims for replacing a damaged door and for cleaning out rubbish from the garage. The damaged door and the rubbish in the garage were only discovered when the new tenants vacated the tenancy in October 2023. Those costs cannot be claimed against these tenants.
The tenant agreed to pay the landlord for chattels he took – a set of drawers and a bike stand. I have awarded the landlord the amount he agreed to pay.

Have the tenants proved claims for compensation?

The tenants’ compensation claims are for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking causing mould and the loss of use of part of the garage.
The tenants say that the skylight in the upstairs bathroom leaked, and water came onto the walls causing mould. They say the downstairs shower would not drain.
The photos the tenants produced in evidence show that the area around the skylight needed some repairs. The landlord said all that was required was cleaning. I do not accept that.
The tenants’ evidence was limited. I cannot make a finding that the downstairs shower would not drain, nor that the heat pump was inadequate.
That curtains were mismatched or missing does not establish a landlord breach.
I accept that there was rubbish left in the garage from previous tenants that limited the use of the garage. Just how much rubbish there was, is in dispute, but the landlord accepts that there was some furniture left there.
The landlord appeared to consider that her convenience storing furniture in the garage trumped the tenants’ use of that space.
From the limited evidence produced, I find that some repair work was neglected and caused a loss of enjoyment for the tenants - leaking and the appearance of mould. And their use of the garage was restricted.
Considering the principles outlined in Birch referred to above, I award them compensation of $400.00 in total.

Have the tenants proved that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS?

If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

The landlord completed a HHS statement, but she did not provide a copy to the tenants.
I queried how she knew the premises were HHS compliant. She assured the Tribunal she was familiar with the standards, yet the HHS compliance date for the tenancy is wrongly recorded.
The landlord correctly noted that a professional HHS assessment is not a statutory requirement. Prudent landlords would ensure that the premises were assessed professionally. Had the tenants produced an assessment that showed non-compliance with the HHS, the landlord might have had exemplary damages awarded against her.
And while the landlord said that a heat pump installer told her the heat pump was an adequate size, that does not necessarily mean that the heat pump met the HHS heating standard.
However, the onus of proof here rests with the tenants to show that the premises were not HHS compliant. They produced no evidence (such as a HHS assessment) on which the Tribunal could conclude that the premises do not comply with the HHS.
That there was a leak from the skylight does not necessarily mean that there was non-compliance. Even compliant premises will require repairs and maintenance during the course of a tenancy.
I find that the tenants have not proved that the premises were not HHS compliant. That means that the tenants have not proved that the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to comply.
Without an unlawful act, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Result
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears (but only to17 September 2022); lock/key replacement; and the agreed cost of chattels taken by the tenant are proved - a total of $1,908.17.
The tenants’ claims for compensation are proved for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to repairs not adequately done and for the loss of use of the garage space – a total of $400.00.
The tenants will therefore pay the landlord $1,508.17.
I make no award of the filing fees each party paid. Each has partly succeeded with their application. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek a name suppression order.
The landlord sought a name suppression order but is not entitled to an order because her application is only partly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4481184 — net $1,508.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 September 2022 (consent	$1,170.00		Rent arrears to 17 September 2022 (consent
Lock/key replacement	$638.17		Lock/key replacement
Reimburse agreed cost for chattels - drawer and bike	$100.00		Reimburse agreed cost for chattels - drawer and bike
Compensation: failure to remove rubbish from garage		$200.00	failure to remove rubbish from garage
Compensation: failure to adequately repair skylight		$200.00	failure to adequately repair skylight
Total award	$1,908.17	$400.00
Net award	$1,508.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,508.17

Claims and awards for application 4481184 — net $1,508.17 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 17 September 2022 (consent

Amount: $1,170.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 17 September 2022 (consent

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $638.17
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Reimburse agreed cost for chattels - drawer and bike

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Reimburse agreed cost for chattels - drawer and bike

Compensation: failure to remove rubbish from garage

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failure to remove rubbish from garage

Compensation: failure to adequately repair skylight

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Compensation Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord but no order is made as the landlord’s application is only partly successful.
Kyle Douglas Soper and Jane Clode must pay Valmai Hazel Somerville $1,508.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s application for cleaning costs is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for repairing a door and for cleaning out rubbish from a garage is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I have considered the oral evidence they both gave and the documentary evidence they produced.
The hearing today was by way of rehearing of the landlord’s application and included the tenants’ cross application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and for exemplary damages for the alleged failure by the landlord to comply with the Health Homes Standards (HHS). Background
The tenancy started on 16 June 2022. Although only Mr Soper is named as the tenant, the parties agree that Ms Clode was a tenant as well; she signed the tenancy agreement.
I have amended the proceedings to include Ms Clode as a tenant party.
This tenancy ended on 17 September 2022. The following day a new tenancy between the landlord and another tenant started. A copy of that tenancy was produced in evidence.
When the Tribunal first heard the landlord’s application rent arrears were claimed to 22 November 2022. The tenant had not lodged a cross application at that time.
The adjudicator who heard the landlord’s application granted a rehearing on application by the tenant.
The matters were heard afresh today. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation? •Have the tenants proved claims for compensation? •Have the tenants proved that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears to 22 November 2022. However, another tenancy started on 18 September 2022. The landlord said that this tenant (Mr Soper) said he would collect the rent from the new tenant.
The new tenancy agreement does not record Mr Soper as a guarantor of the new tenant’s obligations.
This tenancy ended on 17 September 2022. The landlord can only claim rent from these tenants up to that date.
The tenants accepted the amount of rent arrears as at 17 September 2022. I have made a rent arrears order by consent.

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation?

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant or a landlord for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by a party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenant Mr Soper accepted that he did not return all the keys given to him. He had a statutory responsibility to do so.
The landlord confirmed that the locks were changed and that the quoted amount for lock and key replacement had been paid. I find this claim proved. I award the landlord the cost of lock and key replacement - $638.17.
The landlord withdrew her application for cleaning costs.
I dismiss the landlord’s claims for replacing a damaged door and for cleaning out rubbish from the garage. The damaged door and the rubbish in the garage were only discovered when the new tenants vacated the tenancy in October 2023. Those costs cannot be claimed against these tenants.
The tenant agreed to pay the landlord for chattels he took – a set of drawers and a bike stand. I have awarded the landlord the amount he agreed to pay.

Have the tenants proved claims for compensation?

The tenants’ compensation claims are for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking causing mould and the loss of use of part of the garage.
The tenants say that the skylight in the upstairs bathroom leaked, and water came onto the walls causing mould. They say the downstairs shower would not drain.
The photos the tenants produced in evidence show that the area around the skylight needed some repairs. The landlord said all that was required was cleaning. I do not accept that.
The tenants’ evidence was limited. I cannot make a finding that the downstairs shower would not drain, nor that the heat pump was inadequate.
That curtains were mismatched or missing does not establish a landlord breach.
I accept that there was rubbish left in the garage from previous tenants that limited the use of the garage. Just how much rubbish there was, is in dispute, but the landlord accepts that there was some furniture left there.
The landlord appeared to consider that her convenience storing furniture in the garage trumped the tenants’ use of that space.
From the limited evidence produced, I find that some repair work was neglected and caused a loss of enjoyment for the tenants - leaking and the appearance of mould. And their use of the garage was restricted.
Considering the principles outlined in Birch referred to above, I award them compensation of $400.00 in total.

Have the tenants proved that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS?

If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

The landlord completed a HHS statement, but she did not provide a copy to the tenants.
I queried how she knew the premises were HHS compliant. She assured the Tribunal she was familiar with the standards, yet the HHS compliance date for the tenancy is wrongly recorded.
The landlord correctly noted that a professional HHS assessment is not a statutory requirement. Prudent landlords would ensure that the premises were assessed professionally. Had the tenants produced an assessment that showed non-compliance with the HHS, the landlord might have had exemplary damages awarded against her.
And while the landlord said that a heat pump installer told her the heat pump was an adequate size, that does not necessarily mean that the heat pump met the HHS heating standard.
However, the onus of proof here rests with the tenants to show that the premises were not HHS compliant. They produced no evidence (such as a HHS assessment) on which the Tribunal could conclude that the premises do not comply with the HHS.
That there was a leak from the skylight does not necessarily mean that there was non-compliance. Even compliant premises will require repairs and maintenance during the course of a tenancy.
I find that the tenants have not proved that the premises were not HHS compliant. That means that the tenants have not proved that the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to comply.
Without an unlawful act, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Result
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears (but only to17 September 2022); lock/key replacement; and the agreed cost of chattels taken by the tenant are proved - a total of $1,908.17.
The tenants’ claims for compensation are proved for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to repairs not adequately done and for the loss of use of the garage space – a total of $400.00.
The tenants will therefore pay the landlord $1,508.17.
I make no award of the filing fees each party paid. Each has partly succeeded with their application. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek a name suppression order.
The landlord sought a name suppression order but is not entitled to an order because her application is only partly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4481184 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat A, 78 Blenheim Road, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4481184 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat A, 78 Blenheim Road, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation?

Have the tenants proved claims for compensation?

Have the tenants proved that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS?

If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation?

Have the tenants proved claims for compensation?

Have the tenants proved that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS?

If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions