What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4623791?

The tribunal order states: No basis for suppression of the parties’ identifying details is established.

How much money was awarded in case 4623791?

Compensation: fail to provide heatin…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,666.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $189.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4623791?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4623791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9688923-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4623791?

The tribunal order states: No basis for suppression of the parties’ identifying details is established.

How much money was awarded in case 4623791?

Compensation: fail to provide heatin…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,666.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $189.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4623791?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4623791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9688923-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Mariners View Road, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4623791 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4623791 — net $3,707.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,666.69		Rent arrears
Water rates	$189.97		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement: Order 14.6.23	$20.44		Order 14.6.23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Order 14.6.23
Compensation: fail to provide heating source		$300.00	fail to provide heating source
Total award	$5,897.54	$300.00
Net award	$3,707.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,707.54

Order

No basis for suppression of the parties’ identifying details is established.
Jason Anthony Ford must pay Prestige Realty Limited as agent for Zy Qu $3,707.54 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,890.00 (5661411-003) to Prestige Realty Limited as agent for Zy Qu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by telephone. Background
This was a long standing tenancy, having begun on 14 September 2012.
An Order of the Tribunal dated 14 June 2023 (application 4555989) (“the June Order”) found that the tenant owed rent arrears of $7,474.27 as at Thursday 15 June 2023. The Order required that current weekly rent be paid when due, failing which the tenancy would immediately terminate. Otherwise, the tenancy would end 7 July 2023.
The parties confirm that the tenancy ended on that date.
The June Order records that the tenant wished to claim a set off but had lodged no claim.
The tenant filed this application on 5 July 2023 seeking compensation and exemplary damages from the landlord for alleged breach of the landlord’s obligations with regard to the compliance, maintenance and repair of the premises.
The landlord then filed a counter claim on 1 September 2023 seeking rent arrears and outstanding water rates. Tenant’s Claims
The tenant’s claim is expressed in general terms that “We believe that this home/property does not conform to any healthy standards and never has That the landlord & agent knew all along but did nothing. Knew that the property did not meet any standards and avoided doing anything about it for over 13+ years, at our considerable expense.”
More specifically, the tenant claims that the landlord: a. failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards; b. failed to provide adequate heating; c. failed to provide an adequate hot water supply; meaning that the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises were reduced and that he was required to pay excessive electricity charges.
General claims are also made that the tenant was intimidated by the property manager but there is insufficient evidence provided to support that claim. Analysis
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with Healthy Homes standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Healthy Homes Standards
The dates by which various types of residential tenancies are required to comply with Healthy Homes standards are set out in Schedule 1 to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
This tenancy is an ongoing periodic tenancy with a commencement date before 1 July 2021. As such, for the purposes of this tenancy, the premises were required to comply with Healthy Homes standards by 1 July 2025.
It follows that the landlord cannot have been in breach of the obligation to ensure that the premises comply with those standards, before this tenancy ended. Heating
No form of heating was provided with the premises. A Healthy Homes assessment was undertaken in June 2020 which recommended that a 2Kw wall mounted heater be installed, and that was done.
There is no evidence as to whether the heat provided by that heater would meet the Healthy Homes heating standard but, as noted, the landlord was not required to ensure the premises met that standard during this tenancy.
Until the Healthy Homes standards were applicable, the premises were nevertheless subject to Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which provides that “Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating”. No minimum heating capacity is specified.
Until the wall heater was fitted in 2022 the landlord was in breach of that regulation and thereby in breach of the obligation to, “...comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.” (s.45(1)(c)).
That cannot be a basis for awarding exemplary damages, as the breach was remedied when the wall heater was fitted. Any application for an award of exemplary damages must be brought within 12 months of the date of the commission of the unlawful act (s.109(2)).
I am prepared to accept that the tenant will have suffered some loss as a result of the landlord’s breach, by having to himself provide some alternative heat source. In the absence of evidence enabling that loss to be more exactly quantified, only a modest compensation sum to recognise the landlord’s breach is appropriate. I fix that sum at $300.00 as the reasonable cost of providing and installing a heater – being the cost when the landlord met that obligation in 2022. Hot Water
The tenant’s position is that throughout the tenancy the electricity costs for the premises were excessive. He raised those costs with the supply company which confirmed that the charges were high for the type of household the tenant described. The meter was inspected and found to be working properly.
The tenant’s concern was raised with the landlord a number of times. In 2018 the landlord had the hot water tested. The electrician’s report reads, “Investigated temp of hot water. Found to be too hot. Adjusted.”
The tenant says that the problem continued, causing issues between himself and a number of flatmates, some of whom left because of the excessive electricity charges.
He says that shortly prior the end of the tenancy, in April 2023, a professional electrician visited the premises as the tenant was selling some belongings before moving out. When told about the issues with high electricity costs, the electrician said the problem was that the hot water cylinder is installed outside the property rather than inside. His view was that as a result it would be constantly heating up and cooling down, causing excessively high power costs.
That concern was put to the landlord who later arranged for an electrical inspection. The report from that inspection dated 13 August 2023 records: “I have been to 23 Mariner’s View to inspect the hot water cylinder. It is a Rheem Optima which is suitable for indoor or outdoor installations. I have checked the temperature settings which was set at 60 degrees which it should be. I also checked the current draw when heating which is 13.50amps as it should be. The thermostat was also in working order meaning when set temperature is reached, the power is cut to the element and no power is used until it needs heating again”. I note that a very quick online search shows images of such hot water cylinders installed outside in a similar position to the cylinder at these premises. They are clearly promoted as suitable for interior or exterior installation.
The landlord does not dispute that the tenant’s power bills have been high. It says however that those charges are not as a result of any breach of the landlord’s obligations. The landlord notes that the tenant has had a number of flatmates living at the premises. For example a letter from the tenant to the landlord in April 2023 discussing arrangements for the end of the tenancy, the tenant said, “I have had to endure countless flatmates for years.......I had three flatmates leave at once without paying rent....”
The landlord has also put in evidence Watercare bills for the premises which show an ongoing pattern of water consumption at the premises consistent, in terms of Watercare advice, with occupation by 5 or 6 people.
As this is the tenant’s application, the onus is on him to provide evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the high power bills represent a loss caused by breach of some obligation on the landlord’s part. Having regard to the evidence presented I do not find that proved.
Finally, the tenant raises an issue concerning mould from ongoing leaks in the premises which the tenant says the landlord simply painted over. There is no evidence of any notice to remedy or other steps taken by the tenant to have the issue addressed at the time and no evidence of any damage or other loss caused.
The landlord says that some of the mould shown in the photographs is in bathroom areas, resulting from how those areas were used by the tenant. In May 2023 a plumber was engaged to look at a ceiling leak which recommended that a water sealant specialist be engaged. Removal of the ceiling would be required to assess the leak and as the owner had planned significant renovations it was decided to terminate the tenancy at that time so those renovations could be carried out.
It does appear from the limited evidence provided that there is a defect in the premises, allowing a leak into the ceiling area, which it is the landlord’s responsibility to address.
More extensive evidence would be required however before I could find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to adequately maintain the premises. The onus is on the tenant to provide that evidence. Landlord Claims
The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s rent or water rates records, but says that what is owed should be offset by his entitlement to compensation and exemplary damages, assessed above.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4623791 — net $3,707.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,666.69		Rent arrears
Water rates	$189.97		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement: Order 14.6.23	$20.44		Order 14.6.23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Order 14.6.23
Compensation: fail to provide heating source		$300.00	fail to provide heating source
Total award	$5,897.54	$300.00
Net award	$3,707.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,707.54

Order

No basis for suppression of the parties’ identifying details is established.
Jason Anthony Ford must pay Prestige Realty Limited as agent for Zy Qu $3,707.54 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,890.00 (5661411-003) to Prestige Realty Limited as agent for Zy Qu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by telephone. Background
This was a long standing tenancy, having begun on 14 September 2012.
An Order of the Tribunal dated 14 June 2023 (application 4555989) (“the June Order”) found that the tenant owed rent arrears of $7,474.27 as at Thursday 15 June 2023. The Order required that current weekly rent be paid when due, failing which the tenancy would immediately terminate. Otherwise, the tenancy would end 7 July 2023.
The parties confirm that the tenancy ended on that date.
The June Order records that the tenant wished to claim a set off but had lodged no claim.
The tenant filed this application on 5 July 2023 seeking compensation and exemplary damages from the landlord for alleged breach of the landlord’s obligations with regard to the compliance, maintenance and repair of the premises.
The landlord then filed a counter claim on 1 September 2023 seeking rent arrears and outstanding water rates. Tenant’s Claims
The tenant’s claim is expressed in general terms that “We believe that this home/property does not conform to any healthy standards and never has That the landlord & agent knew all along but did nothing. Knew that the property did not meet any standards and avoided doing anything about it for over 13+ years, at our considerable expense.”
More specifically, the tenant claims that the landlord: a. failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards; b. failed to provide adequate heating; c. failed to provide an adequate hot water supply; meaning that the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises were reduced and that he was required to pay excessive electricity charges.
General claims are also made that the tenant was intimidated by the property manager but there is insufficient evidence provided to support that claim. Analysis
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with Healthy Homes standards.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Healthy Homes Standards
The dates by which various types of residential tenancies are required to comply with Healthy Homes standards are set out in Schedule 1 to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
This tenancy is an ongoing periodic tenancy with a commencement date before 1 July 2021. As such, for the purposes of this tenancy, the premises were required to comply with Healthy Homes standards by 1 July 2025.
It follows that the landlord cannot have been in breach of the obligation to ensure that the premises comply with those standards, before this tenancy ended. Heating
No form of heating was provided with the premises. A Healthy Homes assessment was undertaken in June 2020 which recommended that a 2Kw wall mounted heater be installed, and that was done.
There is no evidence as to whether the heat provided by that heater would meet the Healthy Homes heating standard but, as noted, the landlord was not required to ensure the premises met that standard during this tenancy.
Until the Healthy Homes standards were applicable, the premises were nevertheless subject to Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which provides that “Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating”. No minimum heating capacity is specified.
Until the wall heater was fitted in 2022 the landlord was in breach of that regulation and thereby in breach of the obligation to, “...comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.” (s.45(1)(c)).
That cannot be a basis for awarding exemplary damages, as the breach was remedied when the wall heater was fitted. Any application for an award of exemplary damages must be brought within 12 months of the date of the commission of the unlawful act (s.109(2)).
I am prepared to accept that the tenant will have suffered some loss as a result of the landlord’s breach, by having to himself provide some alternative heat source. In the absence of evidence enabling that loss to be more exactly quantified, only a modest compensation sum to recognise the landlord’s breach is appropriate. I fix that sum at $300.00 as the reasonable cost of providing and installing a heater – being the cost when the landlord met that obligation in 2022. Hot Water
The tenant’s position is that throughout the tenancy the electricity costs for the premises were excessive. He raised those costs with the supply company which confirmed that the charges were high for the type of household the tenant described. The meter was inspected and found to be working properly.
The tenant’s concern was raised with the landlord a number of times. In 2018 the landlord had the hot water tested. The electrician’s report reads, “Investigated temp of hot water. Found to be too hot. Adjusted.”
The tenant says that the problem continued, causing issues between himself and a number of flatmates, some of whom left because of the excessive electricity charges.
He says that shortly prior the end of the tenancy, in April 2023, a professional electrician visited the premises as the tenant was selling some belongings before moving out. When told about the issues with high electricity costs, the electrician said the problem was that the hot water cylinder is installed outside the property rather than inside. His view was that as a result it would be constantly heating up and cooling down, causing excessively high power costs.
That concern was put to the landlord who later arranged for an electrical inspection. The report from that inspection dated 13 August 2023 records: “I have been to 23 Mariner’s View to inspect the hot water cylinder. It is a Rheem Optima which is suitable for indoor or outdoor installations. I have checked the temperature settings which was set at 60 degrees which it should be. I also checked the current draw when heating which is 13.50amps as it should be. The thermostat was also in working order meaning when set temperature is reached, the power is cut to the element and no power is used until it needs heating again”. I note that a very quick online search shows images of such hot water cylinders installed outside in a similar position to the cylinder at these premises. They are clearly promoted as suitable for interior or exterior installation.
The landlord does not dispute that the tenant’s power bills have been high. It says however that those charges are not as a result of any breach of the landlord’s obligations. The landlord notes that the tenant has had a number of flatmates living at the premises. For example a letter from the tenant to the landlord in April 2023 discussing arrangements for the end of the tenancy, the tenant said, “I have had to endure countless flatmates for years.......I had three flatmates leave at once without paying rent....”
The landlord has also put in evidence Watercare bills for the premises which show an ongoing pattern of water consumption at the premises consistent, in terms of Watercare advice, with occupation by 5 or 6 people.
As this is the tenant’s application, the onus is on him to provide evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the high power bills represent a loss caused by breach of some obligation on the landlord’s part. Having regard to the evidence presented I do not find that proved.
Finally, the tenant raises an issue concerning mould from ongoing leaks in the premises which the tenant says the landlord simply painted over. There is no evidence of any notice to remedy or other steps taken by the tenant to have the issue addressed at the time and no evidence of any damage or other loss caused.
The landlord says that some of the mould shown in the photographs is in bathroom areas, resulting from how those areas were used by the tenant. In May 2023 a plumber was engaged to look at a ceiling leak which recommended that a water sealant specialist be engaged. Removal of the ceiling would be required to assess the leak and as the owner had planned significant renovations it was decided to terminate the tenancy at that time so those renovations could be carried out.
It does appear from the limited evidence provided that there is a defect in the premises, allowing a leak into the ceiling area, which it is the landlord’s responsibility to address.
More extensive evidence would be required however before I could find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to adequately maintain the premises. The onus is on the tenant to provide that evidence. Landlord Claims
The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s rent or water rates records, but says that what is owed should be offset by his entitlement to compensation and exemplary damages, assessed above.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4623791 — Rent arrears at 23 Mariners View Road, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4623791 — Rent arrears at 23 Mariners View Road, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

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