What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4767829?

The tribunal order states: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited must pay Sachin Dev Singh

How much money was awarded in case 4767829?

Consent Order Award: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767829?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10532153-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4767829?

The tribunal order states: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited must pay Sachin Dev Singh

How much money was awarded in case 4767829?

Consent Order Award: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767829?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10532153-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 5 Park Avenue, Grafton, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4767829 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4767829. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$900.00		Consent order award

Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited must pay Sachin Dev Singh and Monika Shrestha $1,100.00 immediately, being compensation arising from the failure to comply with the heating standard of the Healthy Homes Standards.

By consent, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (3281325-026) to Sachin Dev Singh and Monika Shrestha immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gao represented the landlord.

I first began hearing the application on 14 February 2024. I made a rent arrears finding but did not make an order, reserving that until the hearing today.

Ms Gao informed me today that the tenants have paid all the rent arrears, so no order is required.

She also confirmed that the landlord has no claims against the bond. I have therefore made a bond order by consent for the bond to be paid to the tenants in full. Background

The tenancy started on 23 September 2021 with another landlord. The current property management company became the landlord from 1 September 2022.

Therefore, the tenants’ application against this landlord can only relate to the period between 1 September 2022 and 23 June 2024 when the tenancy ended.

The tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Events post hearing

The landlord obtained a HHS assessment and has produced in evidence the assessment report dated 24 January 2024. That is an obvious date error. The report is likely dated 24 February 2024, after the hearing on 14 February 2024.

The report has confirmed that the premises comply with the HHS other than the heating standard.

Ms Gao confirmed that once she became aware of the failed heating standard, she arranged for the installation of a heating source that complied with the HHS heating standard.

Ms Gao said she had relied on the statement by the previous landlord that the premises were HHS compliant. She was unaware that the previous landlord had only supplied a portable electric heater that did not comply with the HHS. Exemplary damages

The tenants have claimed a full refund of the rent they paid as exemplary damages and/or compensation ($15,000.00 at the date of the application). I explained to them today that their claim was unrealistic. There are very few situations where the Tribunal would order a full refund of rent. Such an action is reserved for the very worst unlawful tenancies.

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.

The failure to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act. However, in this case only one standard was not met. I accept Ms Gao’s evidence that she thought, based on the previous landlord’s HHS statement, that the premises were HHS compliant. Once she had the HHS assessment following the last hearing, she took prompt steps to ensure that the heating standard was met.

I do not find that Ms Gao acted with intent, a necessary element before exemplary damages may be awarded. In other words, she did not ‘turn her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it’.

I dismiss the tenants’ application for exemplary damages. Compensation

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord 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 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 tenants seek compensation for higher-than-expected power bills and for medical expenses they say were incurred for illnesses caused by living in premises with inadequate heating.

The tenants produced no evidence from which the Tribunal could make an accurate assessment of any increased electricity usage.

Nor did they produce evidence from which the Tribunal could conclude that they suffered a particular illness or condition that incurred medical treatment costs directly as a result of inadequate heating.

However, the Tribunal is persuaded to award the tenants some compensation for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the premises not meeting the heating standard of the HHS.

The period at issue is between 1 September 2022 and the end of February 2024, when the heating standard was met by the installation of a compliant heater, about 18 months. In the absence of direct evidence of loss, I award the tenants compensation of $1,100.00 which is roughly $15.00 per week for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy including any costs incurred due to inadequate heating.

I make no order reimbursing the filing fees paid by the parties; each was partially successful. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Result

The landlord will pay the tenants compensation of $1,100.00 for their loss of enjoyment including any costs incurred as a consequence of the premises not complying with the heating standard of the HHS.

The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

By consent, the bond will be paid to the tenants in full. Name suppression

The tenants sought a name suppression order. As the application is only successful in a limited way, given the amount they sought, I make no name suppression order – see section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4767829. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$900.00		Consent order award