What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4849320?

The tribunal order states: Leo Jannisen must pay Robyn Marlean Barahona-Mattas $156.25 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4849320?

Water Rates: $156.25 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849320?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10464682-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4849320?

The tribunal order states: Leo Jannisen must pay Robyn Marlean Barahona-Mattas $156.25 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4849320?

Water Rates: $156.25 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849320?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10464682-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29B Shelley Street, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4849320 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849320 — net $156.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund water rates fixed charges	$156.25	Refund water rates fixed charges
Net award	$156.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$156.25

Order

Leo Jannisen must pay Robyn Marlean Barahona-Mattas $156.25 immediately, as set out below:
The tenant’s application for a declaration that the notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation for an alleged failure to repair is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

I heard this application on 29 May 2024.
I adjourned the hearing with directions: the landlord was to provide copies of all water rates invoices and the calculations of the amount owed by the tenant by 4 June 2024, the tenant having a right of reply.
I extended the timeframe and the landlord produced email correspondence with the tenant setting out the amount over-charged. The tenant did not respond.
As I noted in my order on 29 May 2024, I will determine the issue of liability for water rates based on the information provided.
The tenant has applied for a work order; a refund of over-paid water rates; compensation for increased costs due to draughts and water ingress from skylights vents; exemplary damages for a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS); and a declaration that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory.
The tenant withdrew her application for a work order at the hearing on 29 May 2024. The tenancy ended on 30 May 2024. Issues
There are 4 issues to be determined: •Has the tenant over-paid water rates? •Has the tenant proved a case for compensation for draughts in the toilet, bathroom, and shower? •Has the tenant proved the premises were not compliant with the HHS? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

Has the tenant over-paid water rates?

The tenant paid the landlord an extra $10.00 per week for water rates. In January 2024, the tenant said she asked for copies of the water rates invoices and after a delay she received them.
The tenant said she realised that she had been charged the fixed rate component of the water rates. The landlord said he was unaware that the fixed charge could not be passed on to the tenant.
I adjourned the hearing specifically to allow the landlord to provide all the invoices for water ates so I could be sure that the tenant’s calculation of the amount she has paid for the fixed rate charge is correct. She claims to have over-paid $294.10.
The landlord has provided a breakdown of the amount he has over-charged the tenant for water rates fixed charges - $156.25.
The tenant has not responded to the landlord’s email asking whether she agreed with the calculation.
I therefore accept the landlord’s calculation that the amount due to the tenant for over-paid fixed charges for water rates in $156.25. The landlord must refund that amount. Has the tenant proved a case for compensation for draughts in the toilet, bathroom and shower?
The tenant said the skylights in the bathroom, toilet, and shower rooms (all separate) were draughty and leaked when it rained. She sought compensation for having to use extra heating, and for the inconvenience, based on a ‘rough estimate’.
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 v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 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 landlord said the skylights were used as ventilation in the shower, bathroom, and toilet and were approved as ventilation by the Healthy Homes assessor. He said he lived in the premises until 2008 and noticed no issues, nor did his subsequent tenants report any issues before this tenant’s tenancy started.
I will refer to the HHS assessment later.
These premises were unusual in that the bathroom, shower and toilet are all separate. The skylights were used as a means of external ventilation. While the tenant might have found it undesirable to have the kind of ventilation afforded by the skylights, I do not find that the landlord has breached his responsibilities as a landlord, nor that the tenant has established a case for compensation. Inconvenience does not always amount to a compensable breach.
That the rooms were cold is not a breach of the HHS as the heating standard applies to the living areas.
Possibly there was a maintenance issue; the tenant said the sky lights leaked and were draughty. But the evidence is not sufficient for the Tribunal to conclude that the landlord breached his repair and maintenance responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) such that the tenant should receive compensation.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation. Has the tenant proved the premises were not compliant with the HHS? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were assessed for HHS compliance. He produced the HHS assessment report. The assessment was carried out on 30 May 2022. The premises were assessed as HHS compliant, including the draught and ventilation standards.
The tenant has not produced any evidence to challenge the assessor’s finding that the premises complied with the HHS.
The Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages because the tenant has not proved that the landlord committed a defined unlawful act. Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice?
The landlord gave evidence that he was given notice to terminate his tenancy and was required to vacate the premises he rents by 31 May 2024. He said notice was given to him because the premises he rented were to be sold following his landlords’ relationship break-up.
The landlord said the sequence of events was coincidental. He had to give notice to his tenant because he required the premises for his own use.
Coincidental occurrences such as that described by the landlord happen and it is understandable why the tenant would have been suspicious of the termination notice she received after she had made requests for the skylights to be fixed.
Having heard the landlord’s evidence I accept that he required the premises for his own use, his own tenancy having been terminated following the breakup of his landlords’ relationship.
I find that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was not a retaliatory notice. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $156.25 for the fixed rate component of the water rates she has been incorrectly charged.
The tenant’s application for a declaration that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.
No award of the filing fee is made as the application is only partly successful. Name suppression
The tenant sought an order for name suppression. I make no order as the application is only successful in small part – see section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849320 — net $156.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund water rates fixed charges	$156.25	Refund water rates fixed charges
Net award	$156.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$156.25

Order

Leo Jannisen must pay Robyn Marlean Barahona-Mattas $156.25 immediately, as set out below:
The tenant’s application for a declaration that the notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation for an alleged failure to repair is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

I heard this application on 29 May 2024.
I adjourned the hearing with directions: the landlord was to provide copies of all water rates invoices and the calculations of the amount owed by the tenant by 4 June 2024, the tenant having a right of reply.
I extended the timeframe and the landlord produced email correspondence with the tenant setting out the amount over-charged. The tenant did not respond.
As I noted in my order on 29 May 2024, I will determine the issue of liability for water rates based on the information provided.
The tenant has applied for a work order; a refund of over-paid water rates; compensation for increased costs due to draughts and water ingress from skylights vents; exemplary damages for a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS); and a declaration that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory.
The tenant withdrew her application for a work order at the hearing on 29 May 2024. The tenancy ended on 30 May 2024. Issues
There are 4 issues to be determined: •Has the tenant over-paid water rates? •Has the tenant proved a case for compensation for draughts in the toilet, bathroom, and shower? •Has the tenant proved the premises were not compliant with the HHS? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

Has the tenant over-paid water rates?

The tenant paid the landlord an extra $10.00 per week for water rates. In January 2024, the tenant said she asked for copies of the water rates invoices and after a delay she received them.
The tenant said she realised that she had been charged the fixed rate component of the water rates. The landlord said he was unaware that the fixed charge could not be passed on to the tenant.
I adjourned the hearing specifically to allow the landlord to provide all the invoices for water ates so I could be sure that the tenant’s calculation of the amount she has paid for the fixed rate charge is correct. She claims to have over-paid $294.10.
The landlord has provided a breakdown of the amount he has over-charged the tenant for water rates fixed charges - $156.25.
The tenant has not responded to the landlord’s email asking whether she agreed with the calculation.
I therefore accept the landlord’s calculation that the amount due to the tenant for over-paid fixed charges for water rates in $156.25. The landlord must refund that amount. Has the tenant proved a case for compensation for draughts in the toilet, bathroom and shower?
The tenant said the skylights in the bathroom, toilet, and shower rooms (all separate) were draughty and leaked when it rained. She sought compensation for having to use extra heating, and for the inconvenience, based on a ‘rough estimate’.
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 v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 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 landlord said the skylights were used as ventilation in the shower, bathroom, and toilet and were approved as ventilation by the Healthy Homes assessor. He said he lived in the premises until 2008 and noticed no issues, nor did his subsequent tenants report any issues before this tenant’s tenancy started.
I will refer to the HHS assessment later.
These premises were unusual in that the bathroom, shower and toilet are all separate. The skylights were used as a means of external ventilation. While the tenant might have found it undesirable to have the kind of ventilation afforded by the skylights, I do not find that the landlord has breached his responsibilities as a landlord, nor that the tenant has established a case for compensation. Inconvenience does not always amount to a compensable breach.
That the rooms were cold is not a breach of the HHS as the heating standard applies to the living areas.
Possibly there was a maintenance issue; the tenant said the sky lights leaked and were draughty. But the evidence is not sufficient for the Tribunal to conclude that the landlord breached his repair and maintenance responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) such that the tenant should receive compensation.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation. Has the tenant proved the premises were not compliant with the HHS? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were assessed for HHS compliance. He produced the HHS assessment report. The assessment was carried out on 30 May 2022. The premises were assessed as HHS compliant, including the draught and ventilation standards.
The tenant has not produced any evidence to challenge the assessor’s finding that the premises complied with the HHS.
The Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages because the tenant has not proved that the landlord committed a defined unlawful act. Was the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy a retaliatory notice?
The landlord gave evidence that he was given notice to terminate his tenancy and was required to vacate the premises he rents by 31 May 2024. He said notice was given to him because the premises he rented were to be sold following his landlords’ relationship break-up.
The landlord said the sequence of events was coincidental. He had to give notice to his tenant because he required the premises for his own use.
Coincidental occurrences such as that described by the landlord happen and it is understandable why the tenant would have been suspicious of the termination notice she received after she had made requests for the skylights to be fixed.
Having heard the landlord’s evidence I accept that he required the premises for his own use, his own tenancy having been terminated following the breakup of his landlords’ relationship.
I find that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was not a retaliatory notice. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $156.25 for the fixed rate component of the water rates she has been incorrectly charged.
The tenant’s application for a declaration that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.
No award of the filing fee is made as the application is only partly successful. Name suppression
The tenant sought an order for name suppression. I make no order as the application is only successful in small part – see section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849320 — Tenancy dispute at 29B Shelley Street, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849320 — Tenancy dispute at 29B Shelley Street, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant over-paid water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant over-paid water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions