What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4956573?

The tribunal order states: Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Chiew Keong Leong must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4956573?

Compensation: Breach HHS Heating: $1,440.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956573?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10940604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4956573?

The tribunal order states: Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Chiew Keong Leong must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4956573?

Compensation: Breach HHS Heating: $1,440.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956573?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10940604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5E, 132 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4956573 — Healthy homes

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956573 — net $1,967.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach HHS Heating	$1,440.00	Breach HHS Heating
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS Heating	$500.00	Breach HHS Heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,967.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,967.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

A fixed term tenancy for 6 months began on 18 January 2023 and this subsequently rolled into a periodic tenancy which is still extant today.

The tenant filed an application for damages and exemplary damages on 30 July 2024. The only claim brought to the hearing by the tenant today was for breach of the Healthy Homes Heating Standard, a breach under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) section 45(1)(bb).

The landlord filed a cross application for rent arrears on 25 September 2024, but this was withdrawn by the landlord at the hearing. Breach of HHS heating standard

Mingjie Hu claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Mingjie Hu considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard and seeks a refund of $21,125.00 which is 50% of the total rent for this period.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, if the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, as is the case for this tenancy, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

The landlord does not dispute that they have breached the HHS. They gave an explanation that a particular property manager had incorrectly completed a number of HHS checklists for Impression Real Estate Limited, and this went unnoticed until April 2024. When the error for this particular premises was discovered by a subsequent property manager, a work requisition was filed on 18 April 2024 and a compliant heating unit was installed at the premises on 19 April 2024, that is, the very next day. The landlord stated that an audit on all of the companies’ properties has since been undertaken.

120 days from the beginning of this tenancy ends on 18 May 2024. This is therefore the day from which the breach of the HHS begins, meaning the breach last for a total of 48 weeks.

In this case I find the breach proved, and I have determined Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Chiew Keong Leong committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

Mr Hu stated that the apartment which is on the top level of an apartment block in Auckland city was very hot in summer and very cold in winter. It had only one opening window. Mr Hu purchased a heater but the plug exploded after which Mr Hu did not purchase another heater.

Mr Hu did not notify the landlord there was no heater during the tenancy and the information provided does not persuade me there was great discomfort to Mr Hu as a result of the breach. From the information put before me today I determine that the level of discomfort to Mr Hu was low to moderate and the breach lasted for 48 weeks.

I take into consideration section 49 of the RTA which requires that where a party breaches the RTA, the other party must act to mitigate the breach and I do not have any information before me that persuades me that Mr Hu brought the breach to the landlord’s attention.

I also note that once the landlord realised there was a breach, the breach was remedied in a timely manner, and the landlord actively and openly engaged with Mr Hu regarding compensation, although the parties’ expectations were too far apart for a resolution to be struck.

Considering those factors, I have determined that an appropriate level of compensation in all of the circumstances is a rent reduction of $30.00 per week for the loss of amenity for the 48 weeks duration of the breach. This amounts to $1,440.00.

I also consider that despite the inadvertency of the breach and the landlord’s responsible conduct following the discovery of the breach, exemplary damages are appropriate as there is a high public interest in landlords complying with this legislation.

I consider a relatively low penalty of $500.00 exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances.

Because the applicant has been substantially successful in his application, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956573 — net $1,967.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach HHS Heating	$1,440.00	Breach HHS Heating
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS Heating	$500.00	Breach HHS Heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,967.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,967.00

Order

Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Chiew Keong Leong must pay Mingjie Hu $1,967.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
A fixed term tenancy for 6 months began on 18 January 2023 and this subsequently rolled into a periodic tenancy which is still extant today.
The tenant filed an application for damages and exemplary damages on 30 July 2024. The only claim brought to the hearing by the tenant today was for breach of the Healthy Homes Heating Standard, a breach under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) section 45(1)(bb).
The landlord filed a cross application for rent arrears on 25 September 2024, but this was withdrawn by the landlord at the hearing. Breach of HHS heating standard
Mingjie Hu claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Mingjie Hu considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard and seeks a refund of $21,125.00 which is 50% of the total rent for this period.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, if the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, as is the case for this tenancy, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The landlord does not dispute that they have breached the HHS. They gave an explanation that a particular property manager had incorrectly completed a number of HHS checklists for Impression Real Estate Limited, and this went unnoticed until April 2024. When the error for this particular premises was discovered by a subsequent property manager, a work requisition was filed on 18 April 2024 and a compliant heating unit was installed at the premises on 19 April 2024, that is, the very next day. The landlord stated that an audit on all of the companies’ properties has since been undertaken.
120 days from the beginning of this tenancy ends on 18 May 2024. This is therefore the day from which the breach of the HHS begins, meaning the breach last for a total of 48 weeks.
In this case I find the breach proved, and I have determined Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For Chiew Keong Leong committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Mr Hu stated that the apartment which is on the top level of an apartment block in Auckland city was very hot in summer and very cold in winter. It had only one opening window. Mr Hu purchased a heater but the plug exploded after which Mr Hu did not purchase another heater.
Mr Hu did not notify the landlord there was no heater during the tenancy and the information provided does not persuade me there was great discomfort to Mr Hu as a result of the breach. From the information put before me today I determine that the level of discomfort to Mr Hu was low to moderate and the breach lasted for 48 weeks.
I take into consideration section 49 of the RTA which requires that where a party breaches the RTA, the other party must act to mitigate the breach and I do not have any information before me that persuades me that Mr Hu brought the breach to the landlord’s attention.
I also note that once the landlord realised there was a breach, the breach was remedied in a timely manner, and the landlord actively and openly engaged with Mr Hu regarding compensation, although the parties’ expectations were too far apart for a resolution to be struck.
Considering those factors, I have determined that an appropriate level of compensation in all of the circumstances is a rent reduction of $30.00 per week for the loss of amenity for the 48 weeks duration of the breach. This amounts to $1,440.00.
I also consider that despite the inadvertency of the breach and the landlord’s responsible conduct following the discovery of the breach, exemplary damages are appropriate as there is a high public interest in landlords complying with this legislation.
I consider a relatively low penalty of $500.00 exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances.
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in his application, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956573 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 5E, 132 Vincent Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956573 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 5E, 132 Vincent Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions