What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4554749?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4554749?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4554749?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4554749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9168045-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4554749?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4554749?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4554749?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4554749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9168045-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 52A Woodleigh Street, Frankleigh Park, New Tenancy Tribunal Case 4554749 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4554749 — net $2,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$2,400.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$2,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,420.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4554749 — net $2,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$2,400.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$2,420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,420.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Team Taranaki Rentals Limited as Agent for Yating Li must pay Tamron Raoul Galbraith $2,420.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is a tenant application. Background:
The tenancy commenced on 29 December 2020 and terminated on 20 April 2023. During the tenancy, the tenant became unwell and suffered from a condition of the lungs. He became concerned about the Healthy Homes Standards in the home. After considering the regulations relating to Healthy Homes Standards under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (HHS), the tenant contacted the landlord. The tenant was concerned that the property was in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards and issued a Notice to remedy on 17 November 2022.
The Notice to Remedy related to alleged breaches of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, and draught stopping was issued by the tenant.
The landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Inspection Report on the property dated 14 December 2021 and provided a copy to the Tribunal.
The tenant is seeking exemplary damage for breach of a landlord’s obligations under s45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies act 1986. Heating
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). Tamron Raoul Galbraith considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Notice to remedy states that the heat pump capacity installed in the main living area was 3.2kw, however the tenant measured the area and concluded that
4kw of heating capacity was required. The tenant sought that the heat pump be upgraded to a sufficient capacity.
The Healthy Homes Inspection report considered that the area required a heating capacity of 5.59kw. The landlord accepts that the heating capacity of the present heat pump is below the HHS.
However, the landlord has provided a letter dated 13 April 2022 from Heat Cool, the providers who installed the heat pump. The letter states that the size of the heat pump is unable to be upgraded to any larger size unit due to the power supply to the heat pump. The letter concluded that there are only two power point circuits in the property, and one is running the kitchen. There is no access under the floor or the ceiling to the switchboard to run a dedicated circuit for a larger kw size heat pump.
The landlord says it is exempt from the HHS heating standard due to it not being reasonably practicable to install as assessed by a professional installer. The cost to install would be prohibitive as it would require a new switchboard.
The tenant refutes this claim and states that he has obtained reports and quotes from heat pump installers. They have confirmed that there is an issue with the main power board, and they do not believe it could cope
When asked by the Tribunal if there were attempts to provide top up heating, the landlord believed this was contrary to the HHS in the Residential tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and exempt. Insulation
Tamron Raoul Galbraith claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant claimed that there was no insulation in the ceiling or underfloor and sought for this to be remedied.
The landlord advised the tenant that insulation was installed in the ceiling. A previous owner of the property had stated to the landlord that there was installation in the ceiling after they had repaired the roofing. However, the tenant provided photographs confirming that this was incorrect and there was no insulation in the ceiling.
The HHS inspection report states that ceiling insulation could not be installed due to a very low-pitched roof and was therefore exempt.
Similarly, there was no underfloor insulation due to inaccessibility of the space between the garage underneath and the unit above.
The landlord relies on the Healthy home assessment and belief that the property is exempt. Ventilation
Tamron Raoul Galbraith claims that 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). Tamron Raoul Galbraith considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant claims that there were no extractor fans in the kitchen of bathroom venting outside or a continuous mechanical ventilation. The landlord accepts this and says that due to the construction of the property it is not practical to install them as there is no ceiling space to install cables from the current switches and running a conduit around the rooms from the switch was not practical.
The landlord provided a letter from Kingsroy Electric retailer’s and contractors dated 18 February 2022 which stated that kitchen and bathroom extractor fans could not be installed as there was no roof cavity for extractors, ducting and power to be fitted. Draught stopping
Tamron Raoul Galbraith claims that 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). Tamron Raoul Galbraith considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says that the landlord needs to make sure there are no unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors, and doors. The tenant claims that the windows in the master bedroom are not aligned correctly resulting in gaps that allow a noticeable draught.
The landlord provided invoices from Fernee’s window and door repairs dated 12 December 2022 showing that the landlord fixed the laundry window latches and 31 January 2023 fixed the stays in the bathroom.
After notification of further issues, the landlord arranged to get a service person to attend the property. Moisture and drainage
The tenants rightly claims that a rental property must have efficient drainage for the removal of stormwater, surface water and groundwater. The tenants claims that the driveway on the adjacent property has a gutter that directs water onto the property towards the garage. That during heavy rainstorms water pools at the base of the property and often eaters the garage. The tenant attempts to remedy the issue by purchasing and installing stormwater pipes and a catch to divert the water away for the property.
The landlord provided invoices for work carried out on leaking spouting.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that because of the overwhelming issues on all aspects of the HHS I must find that the landlord has breached these requirements.
I find Team Taranaki Rentals Limited as Agent for Yating Li committed an unlawful act.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that while the landlord did attempt to remedy issues brought to their attention, there were clearly issues that needed to be addressed on a permanent basis.
I accept that the landlord was attempting to remedy where able and relies on exemptions. However, there is an obligation to ensure that rental properties are fully compliant particularly when they have been issued with a 14-day notice to remedy.
I am applying a modest award to the tenant because of my belief that the landlord tried to assist, despite ultimately failing. It was the overall nature of the breaches that persuade me that the tenant had been successful in their claim.
Because Tamron Raoul Galbraith has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4554749 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 52A Woodleigh Street, Frankleigh Park, New

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4554749 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 52A Woodleigh Street, Frankleigh Park, New

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions