What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4712413?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4712413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712413?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9547438-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4712413?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4712413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712413?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9547438-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 21, 9 Mitchell Avenue, Maryhill, Dunedin 9011, Inge's Tenancy Tribunal Case 4712413 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenant, but the Tribunal declines to order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details because his claim was unsuccessful.
The applications by both parties are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought a refund of his $960.00 bond, compensation for unlawful eviction and lack of ventilation in his room.
The landlord cross applied for an administration fee of $200.00, being the fee charged to the owner, for having to take a claim to the Tribunal.
The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy from 18/8/2023 at $240.00 rent per week.
After several termination notices the tenancy ended on 29/9/2023. Was the landlord’s notice invalid?
The tenant submitted that the landlord should have given him 28 days notice to end his tenancy but did not do so resulting in him having to sleep in his car.
In response, the landlord submitted that the tenant was originally given 28 days notice on 12/9/2023.
However, after discussions the landlord allowed the tenant to stay, provided he complied with the house rules, in particular not having guests stay over, not allowing a dog in the room, not cooking or vaping in the room.
After a week the landlord suggested that the behaviour of the tenant had again deteriorated and he was issued with a 48 hour termination notice on 20/9/203, on the basis that the tenant had caused serious disruption to other tenants.
After further emails the timeframe was subsequently extended to 7 days.
The end date of the tenancy was 29/9/2023.
The tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal on 25/9/2023 and was told the landlord should have given him 28 days notice.
The landlord issued a further 48 hour notice on 27/9/2023 based on domestic altercations, illegal activity, theft of food and breaches of the tenancy agreement and house rules.
The landlord suggested that she had received numerous complaints from other tenants, in particular one who had felt intimidated by the behaviour of the tenant and his guests.
On 29/9/2023 the landlord changed the locks and issued a trespass notice to the tenant.
Section 66U sets out how the landlord of a boarding house may terminate a boarding house tenancy.
Subsection (1)(a) provides a landlord may terminate a tenancy immediately if the tenant has, among other matters, endangered or threatened to endanger people or property or caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants.
Under subsection (1)(b) 48 hours notice is required if, among other matters the tenant is using the premises for an illegal purpose.
Subsection (1)(d) allows a landlord to give 28 days notice if no reason is given.
Section 60AA provides that a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Despite the fact that it was not enforced and for the avoidance of doubt I consider the notice of 12/9/2023 was not invalid.
I find the notice of 20/9/2023 was invalid because of the implication that termination was immediate, rather than in 48 hours.
However, because the landlord accepted the mistake and extended the notice period, I consider this a reasonable excuse and there was no unlawful act.
I find the landlord’s notice of 27/9/2023 was not invalid and the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The notice was based on illegal activity in the premises and causing serious disruption to other tenants.
The tenant agreed he had been involved in a domestic altercation in his room, and had a wooden club concealed on his person, which supported the landlord’s evidence of causing serious disruption to other tenants.
In addition, cooking and vaping in the room, as acknowledged by the tenant were breaches of the house rules and could potentially be hazardous to other tenants in the boarding house.
The tenant’s claim for compensation fails.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

The tenant 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) in regard to, among other matters, ventilation.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. 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 2024.
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.
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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant suggested that there was no ventilation in his room because there was no opening window.
In response, the landlord provided a copy of a healthy homes standards assessment report dated 2/5/2021, which recorded compliance with all requirements.
The landlord explained that while there was no opening window in the room there was a vent which was part of a unit which ventilated several rooms and had been upgraded prior to 1/7/2021.
Based on the evidence of the report provided by the landlord I find the vent in the room satisfies the ventilation requirements in the legislation.
The landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the tenant’s claim fails.

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of his bond?

Following the end of the tenancy the tenant agreed with the landlord that the costs of the changing of the locks could be deducted from his bond, despite being unhappy with the after hours call out charge.
The tenant submitted that although he agreed to the deduction, he did not think he should pay for the lock change because he did not believe his tenancy had been validly ended.
Although the invoice submitted by the landlord indicated the cost of the lock change was $226.00, only $81.43 was deducted from the bond, with the tenant receiving a refund of $838.57.
As the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy, I am persuaded that the deduction from the bond for part of the costs of changing the locks was reasonable.
The claim for a full refund of the bond fails.

Should costs be awarded?

The Tribunal can order a party to pay reasonable costs to the other party where: the Tribunal believes the claim is frivolous or vexatious, any of the parties are represented by a lawyer, the claim should have been settled at mediation, or the applicant has failed to attend the hearing without reasonable excuse. See section 102(2),(3)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am not persuaded that the application by the tenant was frivolous or vexatious.
The landlord agreed in the email of 27/9/2023 that the first 48 hour termination notice was confusing because it “implied an immediate eviction for a breach categorized under” section 66U(1)(iii).
In total the tenant received three notices to terminate his tenancy.
After the first two notices he filed an application because he wanted the same amount of notice he was given the first time.
I consider it was not unreasonable for the tenant to continue with his application, despite the efforts of the landlord to settle the matter. This is because by 25 September the relationship between the parties had clearly deteriorated and it was appropriate for the Tribunal to hear the application.
The claim for administration costs fails.
No filing fee is awarded because both parties were unsuccessful.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenant, but the Tribunal declines to order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details because his claim was unsuccessful.
The applications by both parties are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought a refund of his $960.00 bond, compensation for unlawful eviction and lack of ventilation in his room.
The landlord cross applied for an administration fee of $200.00, being the fee charged to the owner, for having to take a claim to the Tribunal.
The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy from 18/8/2023 at $240.00 rent per week.
After several termination notices the tenancy ended on 29/9/2023. Was the landlord’s notice invalid?
The tenant submitted that the landlord should have given him 28 days notice to end his tenancy but did not do so resulting in him having to sleep in his car.
In response, the landlord submitted that the tenant was originally given 28 days notice on 12/9/2023.
However, after discussions the landlord allowed the tenant to stay, provided he complied with the house rules, in particular not having guests stay over, not allowing a dog in the room, not cooking or vaping in the room.
After a week the landlord suggested that the behaviour of the tenant had again deteriorated and he was issued with a 48 hour termination notice on 20/9/203, on the basis that the tenant had caused serious disruption to other tenants.
After further emails the timeframe was subsequently extended to 7 days.
The end date of the tenancy was 29/9/2023.
The tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal on 25/9/2023 and was told the landlord should have given him 28 days notice.
The landlord issued a further 48 hour notice on 27/9/2023 based on domestic altercations, illegal activity, theft of food and breaches of the tenancy agreement and house rules.
The landlord suggested that she had received numerous complaints from other tenants, in particular one who had felt intimidated by the behaviour of the tenant and his guests.
On 29/9/2023 the landlord changed the locks and issued a trespass notice to the tenant.
Section 66U sets out how the landlord of a boarding house may terminate a boarding house tenancy.
Subsection (1)(a) provides a landlord may terminate a tenancy immediately if the tenant has, among other matters, endangered or threatened to endanger people or property or caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants.
Under subsection (1)(b) 48 hours notice is required if, among other matters the tenant is using the premises for an illegal purpose.
Subsection (1)(d) allows a landlord to give 28 days notice if no reason is given.
Section 60AA provides that a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Despite the fact that it was not enforced and for the avoidance of doubt I consider the notice of 12/9/2023 was not invalid.
I find the notice of 20/9/2023 was invalid because of the implication that termination was immediate, rather than in 48 hours.
However, because the landlord accepted the mistake and extended the notice period, I consider this a reasonable excuse and there was no unlawful act.
I find the landlord’s notice of 27/9/2023 was not invalid and the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The notice was based on illegal activity in the premises and causing serious disruption to other tenants.
The tenant agreed he had been involved in a domestic altercation in his room, and had a wooden club concealed on his person, which supported the landlord’s evidence of causing serious disruption to other tenants.
In addition, cooking and vaping in the room, as acknowledged by the tenant were breaches of the house rules and could potentially be hazardous to other tenants in the boarding house.
The tenant’s claim for compensation fails.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

The tenant 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) in regard to, among other matters, ventilation.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. 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 2024.
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.
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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant suggested that there was no ventilation in his room because there was no opening window.
In response, the landlord provided a copy of a healthy homes standards assessment report dated 2/5/2021, which recorded compliance with all requirements.
The landlord explained that while there was no opening window in the room there was a vent which was part of a unit which ventilated several rooms and had been upgraded prior to 1/7/2021.
Based on the evidence of the report provided by the landlord I find the vent in the room satisfies the ventilation requirements in the legislation.
The landlord has not committed an unlawful act and the tenant’s claim fails.

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of his bond?

Following the end of the tenancy the tenant agreed with the landlord that the costs of the changing of the locks could be deducted from his bond, despite being unhappy with the after hours call out charge.
The tenant submitted that although he agreed to the deduction, he did not think he should pay for the lock change because he did not believe his tenancy had been validly ended.
Although the invoice submitted by the landlord indicated the cost of the lock change was $226.00, only $81.43 was deducted from the bond, with the tenant receiving a refund of $838.57.
As the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy, I am persuaded that the deduction from the bond for part of the costs of changing the locks was reasonable.
The claim for a full refund of the bond fails.

Should costs be awarded?

The Tribunal can order a party to pay reasonable costs to the other party where: the Tribunal believes the claim is frivolous or vexatious, any of the parties are represented by a lawyer, the claim should have been settled at mediation, or the applicant has failed to attend the hearing without reasonable excuse. See section 102(2),(3)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am not persuaded that the application by the tenant was frivolous or vexatious.
The landlord agreed in the email of 27/9/2023 that the first 48 hour termination notice was confusing because it “implied an immediate eviction for a breach categorized under” section 66U(1)(iii).
In total the tenant received three notices to terminate his tenancy.
After the first two notices he filed an application because he wanted the same amount of notice he was given the first time.
I consider it was not unreasonable for the tenant to continue with his application, despite the efforts of the landlord to settle the matter. This is because by 25 September the relationship between the parties had clearly deteriorated and it was appropriate for the Tribunal to hear the application.
The claim for administration costs fails.
No filing fee is awarded because both parties were unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712413 — Healthy homes at Room 21, 9 Mitchell Avenue, Maryhill, Dunedin 9011, Inge's

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712413 — Healthy homes at Room 21, 9 Mitchell Avenue, Maryhill, Dunedin 9011, Inge's

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of his bond?

Should costs be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of his bond?

Should costs be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions