What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4748089?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4748089?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4748089?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4748089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9973755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4748089?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4748089?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4748089?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4748089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9973755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3A Memorial Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4748089 — Healthy homes

Order

The application is dismissed.
The application for name suppression is refused.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person on 19 February 2024.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for various alleged breaches.
The compensation claims include an alleged misleading advertisement; the landlord’s failure to repair a kettle; and noise caused by contractors working at the premises for 2 days doing repairs which interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
As well the tenant alleges a breach of his quiet enjoyment because the landlord would not allow overnight stays by guests in the boarding house tenancy.
The tenant’s exemplary damages claims relate to an alleged breach by the landlord of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS); inadequate disclosure statements in the tenancy agreement and no list of chattels; and alleged retaliatory notice given by the landlord to end the tenancy. Procedural note
This application was one of four brought be separate tenants in the same boarding house each with their own tenancy agreement.
I heard the applications separately over two days.
I reserved my decisions. I dismissed one application since there was no appearance by the tenant.
Two of the applications are similar and I will issue separate decisions on this application and the other, at the same time, to ensure consistency.
The other tenant application with a landlord cross application is more comprehensive. My decision on those applications will be issued separately, but I require further time to complete it. Previous application
The tenant previously made an application against the landlord for compensation and exemplary damages relating to the same tenancy. Specifically, the adjudicator noted that the claims included: •Breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises •The boarding agreement terms did not comply with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) •Exemplary damages where available for proven breaches.
The Tribunal heard that application on 10 November 2023. The Tribunal awarded the tenant exemplary damages of $1,000.00 for the landlord’s failure to provide adequate wi-fi.
The Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s compensation claims and made no order concerning inadequacies in the tenancy agreement. So, the tenant was successful, but only in part. The current application
I asked the tenant why he did not include the claims made in this application in his earlier application. He said he did not know he could do so. It was only after he discussed matters with other tenants and friends that he became aware of other claims he could make.
Generally, one party cannot make multiple claims against another party relating to the same tenancy. Only claims that could not have been made at the time of the first application can become the subject of another application.
When the tenant made his first application, and when it was heard, the claims for compensation (the alleged misleading advertisement, the kettle, and the noise by tradespeople) were already known about. The same applied to the deficiencies in the tenancy agreement and the alleged failure to comply with the HHS. Those issues did not arise after the hearing, they existed before it.
The tenant could have and should have included all the claims against the landlord in the first application.
It is procedurally unfair for one party to receive the Tribunal’s decision on an application and then decide to ‘have a second crack’. All matters relating to alleged breaches by a party should be dealt with at the same time.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application for further compensation and for exemplary damages for alleged breaches present at the time of the first application. Retaliatory notice
The only exception in this case is the tenant’s application for exemplary damages for the alleged retaliatory notice given by the landlord. That is because the notice had not been given at the time of the first hearing, nor was it anticipated.
The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was served on all remaining tenants on 29 November 2023, 19 days after the tenant’s application was heard, and 12 days after the Tribunal issued its decision on the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages.
In some circumstances that might be considered a retaliatory notice.
However, in this case it is not. The landlord gave evidence that he decided to put the premises on the market for sale. They are currently listed for sale with Harcourts.
I accept that the landlord ended the tenancies of all remaining tenants for a valid reason.
The tenant has not proved that the notice to terminate was a retaliatory notice. I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant sought a name suppression order. The application for name suppression is declined as the application is unsuccessful – see section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The application for name suppression is refused.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person on 19 February 2024.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for various alleged breaches.
The compensation claims include an alleged misleading advertisement; the landlord’s failure to repair a kettle; and noise caused by contractors working at the premises for 2 days doing repairs which interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
As well the tenant alleges a breach of his quiet enjoyment because the landlord would not allow overnight stays by guests in the boarding house tenancy.
The tenant’s exemplary damages claims relate to an alleged breach by the landlord of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS); inadequate disclosure statements in the tenancy agreement and no list of chattels; and alleged retaliatory notice given by the landlord to end the tenancy. Procedural note
This application was one of four brought be separate tenants in the same boarding house each with their own tenancy agreement.
I heard the applications separately over two days.
I reserved my decisions. I dismissed one application since there was no appearance by the tenant.
Two of the applications are similar and I will issue separate decisions on this application and the other, at the same time, to ensure consistency.
The other tenant application with a landlord cross application is more comprehensive. My decision on those applications will be issued separately, but I require further time to complete it. Previous application
The tenant previously made an application against the landlord for compensation and exemplary damages relating to the same tenancy. Specifically, the adjudicator noted that the claims included: •Breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises •The boarding agreement terms did not comply with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) •Exemplary damages where available for proven breaches.
The Tribunal heard that application on 10 November 2023. The Tribunal awarded the tenant exemplary damages of $1,000.00 for the landlord’s failure to provide adequate wi-fi.
The Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s compensation claims and made no order concerning inadequacies in the tenancy agreement. So, the tenant was successful, but only in part. The current application
I asked the tenant why he did not include the claims made in this application in his earlier application. He said he did not know he could do so. It was only after he discussed matters with other tenants and friends that he became aware of other claims he could make.
Generally, one party cannot make multiple claims against another party relating to the same tenancy. Only claims that could not have been made at the time of the first application can become the subject of another application.
When the tenant made his first application, and when it was heard, the claims for compensation (the alleged misleading advertisement, the kettle, and the noise by tradespeople) were already known about. The same applied to the deficiencies in the tenancy agreement and the alleged failure to comply with the HHS. Those issues did not arise after the hearing, they existed before it.
The tenant could have and should have included all the claims against the landlord in the first application.
It is procedurally unfair for one party to receive the Tribunal’s decision on an application and then decide to ‘have a second crack’. All matters relating to alleged breaches by a party should be dealt with at the same time.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application for further compensation and for exemplary damages for alleged breaches present at the time of the first application. Retaliatory notice
The only exception in this case is the tenant’s application for exemplary damages for the alleged retaliatory notice given by the landlord. That is because the notice had not been given at the time of the first hearing, nor was it anticipated.
The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was served on all remaining tenants on 29 November 2023, 19 days after the tenant’s application was heard, and 12 days after the Tribunal issued its decision on the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages.
In some circumstances that might be considered a retaliatory notice.
However, in this case it is not. The landlord gave evidence that he decided to put the premises on the market for sale. They are currently listed for sale with Harcourts.
I accept that the landlord ended the tenancies of all remaining tenants for a valid reason.
The tenant has not proved that the notice to terminate was a retaliatory notice. I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant sought a name suppression order. The application for name suppression is declined as the application is unsuccessful – see section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4748089 — Healthy homes at 3A Memorial Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4748089 — Healthy homes at 3A Memorial Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions