What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4823498?

The tribunal order states: Jessie Elia and Daniel Etelani must pay Prabha Holdings Limited $430.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 4823498?

Compensation: Breaches of section 45…: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent To 20/03/2024: $2,230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823498?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10864900-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4823498?

The tribunal order states: Jessie Elia and Daniel Etelani must pay Prabha Holdings Limited $430.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 4823498?

Compensation: Breaches of section 45…: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent To 20/03/2024: $2,230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823498?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10864900-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

187 Portage Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4823498 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823498 — net $430.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 20/03/2024	$2,230.00		Rent to 20/03/2024
Compensation: Breaches of section 45 RTA		$1,800.00	Breaches of section 45 RTA
Total award	$2,230.00	$1,800.00
Net award	$430.00
Bond	$2,230.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$430.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823498 — net $430.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 20/03/2024	$2,230.00		Rent to 20/03/2024
Compensation: Breaches of section 45 RTA		$1,800.00	Breaches of section 45 RTA
Total award	$2,230.00	$1,800.00
Net award	$430.00
Bond	$2,230.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$430.00

Order

Jessie Elia and Daniel Etelani must pay Prabha Holdings Limited $430.00 from the bond calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,230.00 (3725442-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Prabha Holdings Limited: $430.00 Jessie Elia and Daniel Etelani: $1,800.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 September 2024.
This matter was previously considered at a case conference on 10 June 2024 and directions made to prepare for the substantive hearing.
The tenants filed a claim on 29 February 2024 and seek the following: (a)Bond refund (b)Compensation for the following breaches by the landlord -Healthy homes breaches including removing the circuit breaker for the heat pump. -Failure to maintain the premises in reasonable state of repair due to mould issues. -Breach of quiet enjoyment – for failing to give correct notice before entering the premises and raising issues with tenants in relation to water and power consumption.
The landlord disputed all of the tenant’s claims and advised that they sought to file a counter claim.
This tenancy commenced in July 2023 and ended in March 2024.
The tenants also raised issues in relation to a previous tenancy between the parties that ended in February 2023. However, no application was filed in respect of that earlier tenancy.
At the case conference the tenants raised matters that gave the Tribunal cause to question whether the premises were lawful residential premises.
The case was adjourned to a substantive hearing on 24 September 2024 to enable both parties to file further claims and evidence, including evidence “of the nature of this tenancy and these premises, whether they were rented as two separate units and if yes whether this was lawful. Or alternatively whether this was a room by room rental of the entire premises”. (See paragraphs 13 and 14 of Tribunal order dated 10 June 2024).
The tenant did not file any further claims or evidence.
The landlord filed a claim for rent in lieu of 28 days’ notice in the sum of $2230.00.
Neither party filed any documentary evidence in respect of the lawfulness of the premises.

Were the premises rented by these tenants unlawful residential premises?

The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Section 36 requires the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that at the commencement of the tenancy there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
Section 45(1)(c) requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. There are building code requirements if a single dwelling is divided in to two units.
On the face of it these premises appear to be a single dwelling. There is one letterbox, one wheelie bin and there are no separate power and water meters for the upstairs and downstairs. The tenants were not charged for power or water it was included in the weekly rent.
The landlord claimed that the upstairs and downstairs were not rented as two separate dwellings but that the premises were a single dwelling with two tenancies with the downstairs bedroom rented out as a room-by-room rental.
Neither party filed any evidence from the council in respect of the status of these premises.
The landlord claimed these tenants rented a three-bedroom premises with living room, bathroom and kitchen which was consented when the house was built.
The tenants had no access to the garage which was locked and an internal door to part of the downstairs was also locked. They stated that the premises were being rented as two separate units.
There is no suggestion that the area of the house rented by the tenants in this tenancy is not lawful. There is no requirement on a landlord to rent a full house to a tenant. Section 2 of the RTA states that premises includes any part of any premises.
The status of the downstairs area is not before me as it does not form part of this tenancy. No documentary evidence of the terms of the downstairs tenancy was provided.
Having considered the conflicting submissions of the parties and the lack of evidence filed in respect of the lawfulness of the premises I find that there Is insufficient evidence in this case to prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises rented by these tenants were unlawful residential premises.
However, the electrical issues raised by the tenants as a result of the downstairs area will be considered in light of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
The Tribunal will therefore continue to consider the claims of both parties.

Has the landlord breached their obligations under section 45?

Jessie Elia and Daniel Etelani claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45, a landlord has obligations including that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with healthy homes standards and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. See section 45 (1) (b) (bb) and (c) RTA.
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. Heatpump/Electrical issues
The tenant claims that the landlord breached their obligations by removing an electrical circuit breaker which disabled the heatpump and claims this is a breach of the landlord’s obligations to repair and maintain and to comply with health and safety and healthy homes standards under section 45.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The compliance date in this tenancy is 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants consider that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS heating standard by removing the circuit for the heatpump which rendered it unusable.
The tenants advised that on 2 February 2023 the landlord knocked on their door and asked if the heatpump was used much. The tenants stated they replied “No”. The landlord asked to come inside and look at the fusebox and the tenant let him in. He checked the fusebox and left.
On the following Monday the tenants advised it was a hot day and Mr Etelani turned on the heatpump to cool the room and it did not work. Upon checking the fusebox they discovered that the circuit breaker for the heatpump had been removed. The tenants provided photographs of the circuit board.
The tenant claimed that the landlord was telephoned, and he stated that he had every right to remove it. The tenants were unhappy with this answer.
The landlord stated that he discovered that the downstairs occupant had wired Christmas lights to the heatpump circuit, and he was concerned that this was a safety issue, so he disconnected the heatpump. He did not remedy this prior to the tenancy ending.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 for the following reasons: (a)The landlord is required to comply with healthy homes requirements. The premises had no heatpump for one month from 2 February 2023 until the end of the tenancy and the landlord did not remedy this. (b)The landlord claimed that the tenant agreed to the heatpump being disconnected. The tenants dispute this and state they had no knowledge the landlord was disconnecting the heatpump. However, pursuant to section 11 (3) of the RTA any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred by the RTA is of no effect. The heatpump was provided with the tenancy and the tenants are entitled to expect it to be working and even if they waived this right, which they deny, it is of no effect. (c)The landlord stated that there was an electrical safety issue and potential hazard at the property. He stated that he did not call an electrician as there was “no need” and instead tried to remedy this himself by disabling the upstairs heatpump. (d)The failure to call an electrician when the landlord was aware there was an electrical hazard created potential safety issues for the tenants and was a failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Mould issues.
The tenants claimed that the premises were mouldy and in a poor state of repair and that the landlord was notified and failed to remedy this.
The tenants claimed there was mould in 3 bedrooms, the sitting room and bathroom. The tenants provided photographs of the premises showing extensive mould on walls and ceilings and a windowsill. It is evident from the photographs that the paintwork is in poor condition.
The tenants claimed that they notified the landlord who did not investigate and remedy the issue.
The landlord agreed that the tenants had notified him of the mould but stated that they had signed the entry inspection report filled out by him which recorded the premises were “in reasonably good condition”. He stated that when the tenants mentioned that the premises were not clean, he replied that they were in the same condition they had left it in after their previous tenancy with him.
The landlord stated that he did not go to investigate the mould as he understood the tenants said they could sort it out. He claimed that the mould issue could be resolved by opening windows.
The tenants stated as the landlord did not investigate and remedy the issue they attempted to clean the mould themselves but it recurred.
Minimisation of mould is a joint responsibility of landlords and tenants: Warwick Todd Limited v Tapper, TT 1381/02, Christchurch, 15 August 2002 and Peach v Karanaris, TT 1729 & 1730/01, Waitakere, 20 November 2001. Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this cannot be done, then it is the landlord’s responsibility to rectify. On the other hand, a tenant must tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken.
The tenant notified the landlord of the mould situation. Without professional investigation it is not possible to assess the cause of the mould.
Having considered the evidence of both parties and the photographs I find that the landlord’s failure to investigate the mould issue when it was raised with him is a breach of the obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Compensation
The tenants seek compensation for the effect of the landlord’s breach of obligations.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
Rather than out of pocket expenses the Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience of living in a mouldy property and of not being able to use the heatpump for air cooling for one month. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest.
The tenants stated that there was an ongoing stress and inconvenience to them during the eight month tenancy as a result of the landlord failing to respond to the mould issues and that dealing with the electrical issue himself by disconnecting the heatpump denied them use of this for one month.
Having considered the factors in this case I consider it appropriate to take a broad-brush approach and order a lump sum compensation for the breaches of section 45. I order compensation in the sum of $1800.00, this is made up of $200 per month for the 8 months of the tenancy that the mould issue was not investigated ($1600.00) plus a further $200.00 for the month when the heatpump was disconnected.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Jessie Elia and Daniel Etelani claim the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by entering the premises without giving the correct notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is agreed that the landlord came to the exterior of the premises and to the garage which was not included in the tenancy but premises in section 48 does not include land or facilities. See section 48(7) RTA.
The tenants claim that the landlord entered the premises without first giving notice to investigate a water leak and again to investigate the heatpump electrical issue.
The landlord stated that on each occasion he believed these issues to be emergencies and on each occasion the tenants consented to him entering.
The tenants agreed that they had allowed the landlord to enter to investigate the water leak and the electrical issue, although reluctantly.
Although prior notice was not given, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was an unlawful entry as the tenants allowed the landlord to enter the premises to investigate the water and power issues.

Do the tenants owe rent?

On 26 February 2024 the tenants gave one week notice to end the periodic tenancy. The tenants moved out of the premises by 3 March 2024.
Pursuant to section 51 (2B) RTA tenants are required to give 28 days’ notice to end a tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent in lieu of notice to 20 March 2024 in the sum of $2235.00 and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The amount is ordered as sought. Filing fee
As both parties have had success with their applications, I make no order for reimbursement of either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823498 — Tenancy dispute at 187 Portage Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823498 — Tenancy dispute at 187 Portage Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises rented by these tenants unlawful residential premises?

Has the landlord breached their obligations under section 45?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Do the tenants owe rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises rented by these tenants unlawful residential premises?

Has the landlord breached their obligations under section 45?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Do the tenants owe rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions