What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4880641?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4880641?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4880641?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4880641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11086697-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4880641?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4880641?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4880641?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4880641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11086697-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 7 Bayard Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4880641 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 17 April 2024, the landlord sent the tenant a letter giving 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy under section 53B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This notice to terminate was then revoked in a letter the landlord sent to the tenant on 4 June 2024. In this letter, the landlord stated the following: “Despite issuing you with the correct notice under s 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), we had been unable to access your home to compete the required work.”

The work related to having a heat pump installed in the premises to ensure the property complied with the healthy homes standards.

The tenant is aggrieved by the landlord’s claim that they prevented access for the required work to be undertaken. The tenant vehemently disputes that this was the case and has asked the Tribunal to make a factual finding declaring this not to be true.

The difficulty with the tenant’s application is that they have not identified an alleged breach by the landlord of the RTA or tenancy agreement. I do not consider that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make a declaration of the kind the tenant seeks. See section 78(1) RTA.

At the hearing, it became apparent that the tenant was unhappy with several actions the landlord has taken in respect of this tenancy. The tenant might benefit from seeking legal advice about whether these actions amount to a breach of any section(s) of the RTA by the landlord. If they do, it remains open to the tenant to file a fresh application. Any subsequent application filed by the tenant should refer to the section(s) of the RTA or tenancy agreement they say the landlord has breached. Filing fee

As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

The tenant’s written application requested name suppression.

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant them name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA.

I have a residual discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’

The tenant did not advance their application for name suppression at the hearing. I was not referred to any special circumstances why name suppression should be granted and none are apparent from the facts of this case.

I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The work related to having a heat pump installed in the premises to ensure the property complied with the healthy homes standards.

As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

The tenant’s written application requested name suppression.

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant them name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA.

I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4880641 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 7 Bayard Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4880641 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 7 Bayard Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

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