What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4986214?

The tribunal order states: CLP Holdings Limited and Paul Le Prou must pay Candace Brown $1,027.00

How much money was awarded in case 4986214?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986214?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986214?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11592811-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4986214?

The tribunal order states: CLP Holdings Limited and Paul Le Prou must pay Candace Brown $1,027.00

How much money was awarded in case 4986214?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986214?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986214?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11592811-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 48 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4986214 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986214 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
General damages – unlawful increase of rent	$1,000.00	General damages – unlawful increase of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986214 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
General damages – unlawful increase of rent	$1,000.00	General damages – unlawful increase of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Order

CLP Holdings Limited and Paul Le Prou must pay Candace Brown $1,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 March 2025. The tenant was given an opportunity to provide photographs of the condition of the premises after the hearing. The Tribunal received further documents and submissions from the parties. Background
The tenancy started on 19 September 2019 and ended on 19 October 2023. The initial rent was $500.00 with a bond of $1,000.00.
On 28 August 2024 the tenant applied to the Tribunal claiming compensation for (1) breach of the Healthy Homes Standards; (2) an unlawful increase of the rent during the COVID lockdown; and (3) harassment over payment of the water charges.
The Tribunal previously determined a claim to vacated compensation by the landlord. The Tribunal made a net award of $5,789.54 in the landlord’s favour. Rent Increases
The information provided from WINZ identifies the following weekly rental amounts were paid: • $500.00 from the beginning of the tenancy on 5 September 2019. • An increase to $660.00 from 7 July 2020. • A decrease to $600.00 from 19 January 2021. • A decrease to $565.00 from 23 November 2021. • An increase to $650.00 from 26 July 2022. • A decrease to $635.00 from 6 September 2022. • An increase to $655.00 from 15 August 2023.
The Tribunal file contains the following notices of rent increase from the landlord: • A letter dated 23 June 2020 referred to the tenant’s request to have an additional adult and two children live at the premises. The landlord said he would accept the extra tenants if it was approved by WINZ for both the tenant’s family situation, “and also for the extra rental and the water account added to your weekly rent so that I am responsible for all water rates”. The rent was to be increased by $80.00 and the water an extra $50.00 per week, bringing the total rent including water to $630.00. • A letter dated 1 May 2022 increasing the rent to $635.00 per week from 18 July 2022. • On 19 July 2023, the landlord issued a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 19 October 2023. This was accompanied by an email increasing the rent to $655.00 per week. The email did not specify when the rent would increase but the WINZ information indicates it took effect from 15 August 2023.
The tenant provided various tenancy agreements purporting to create the following residential tenancies: • A periodic tenancy from 5 September 2019 for a weekly rent of $500.00, signed on 22 August 2019. This recorded that water rates and power were the tenant’s responsibility. • A periodic tenancy from 5 September 2019 for a weekly rent of $630.00, signed on 30 June 2020. This recorded that water was included in the rent and power was the tenant’s responsibility. It also noted the change to the maximum number of occupants. • A periodic tenancy from 15 January 2021 for a weekly rent of $550.00, signed on 30 June 2021. There was no mention of power or water charges.
The landlord provided two tenancy agreements purporting to create the following residential tenancies: • A periodic tenancy from 5 September 2019 for a weekly rent of $500.00, signed on 22 August 2019. This recorded that water rates and power were the tenant’s responsibility. It appears to be identical to the first tenancy agreement provided by the tenant, above. • A periodic tenancy from 5 September 2019 for a weekly rent of $630.00, signed on 30 June 2020. This recorded that water was included in the rent and power was the tenant’s responsibility. It also noted the change to the maximum number of tenants. It appears to be identical to the second tenancy agreement provided by the tenant, above. Relevant Law
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) was amended on 26 March 2020 with the insertion of Schedule 5 (Provisions relating to outbreak of COVID-19).
Schedule 5 introduced restrictions on the termination of tenancies and on landlords’ ability to increase the rent. Clause 12 of the Schedule provided that “...the rent payable in respect of any tenancy may not be increased”. Further, any notice to increase the rent given before 26 March 2020 and which had not taken effect by then, was of no effect.
Clause 13 of Schedule 5 provided that a landlord committed an “unlawful act” if they increased or purported to increase the rent knowing they were not entitled to do so. The maximum award of exemplary damages that could be awarded for this was $6,500.00.
Clauses 12 and 13 were expressed to apply for 6 months from 26 March 2020. Schedule 5 was repealed on 26 November 2022. Discussion
It is difficult to reconcile all the various changes in the rent as evidenced by the tenancy agreements and the WINZ payment history. What stands out is that the weekly rent was increased from $500.00 to $630.00 on 30 June 2020 (this included $50.00 for water, so the effective rent increase was $80.00 to $580.00).
The landlord said the tenant had requested that the water be included in the rent because they were struggling to pay the charges. He said the rent was not increased during the “rent freeze” except where water charges were added as a fixed weekly increase, and “an increase for the placing of a portable room and extra non-custodial children were asked to be moved in during this time also”. The landlord said part of this rent was refunded when the portable room was removed, and the additional adult moved out. The landlord said the rent was reduced during COVID-19.
The landlord submitted that the rent was not increased, rather, the tenancy agreement was re-written. He was advised by Tenancy Services to sign a new tenancy agreement to reflect the new terms (changes to responsibility for water and to maximum occupancy, etc) because otherwise the rent could not be changed.
As set out above, it was not lawful for the landlord to increase the rent between 26 March 2020 and 26 September 2020. Schedule 5 applied to all residential tenancies despite any other provision of the Act or any other enactment, rule of law or agreement (clause 2).
The landlord appears to have known this, because the rent increase was structured as a new tenancy agreement as a way of avoiding the restriction. I find that the landlord committed an “unlawful act”. It makes no difference that the tenant agreed to the increase (the tenant said she thought she had no other choice) because tenants cannot waive their rights (section 11(3)).
I accept that the landlord may have considered he was entitled to increase the rent to cover the inclusion of water charges, given the increased occupancy, but that still leaves a rent increase of $80.00 which cannot be explained by reference to the change in responsibility for water.
The Tribunal cannot now award exemplary damages. Any claim for such damages is out of time. The application had to be brought within 1 year of the unlawful rent increase (section 109(2) of the Act). It is also extremely difficult, at this distance in time and with the seemingly frequent changes in the payments being made by WINZ, to calculate whether the tenant overpaid or underpaid any rent.
However, I consider the tenant is entitled to compensation for anxiety and distress caused by the rent increase. In the unprecedented situation during the COVID- 19 pandemic in the first half of 2020, there were clear legal provisions precluding landlords from increasing the rent. The tenant should not have had to deal with a rent increase at that time, regardless of any discount given later. If the application had been brought in time, I would have made an order for exemplary damages.
After considering the available evidence, I award general damages of $1,000.00. Harassment
The landlord served a notice dated 17 June 2020 headed: “Final payment notice for water and xtra [sic] rubbish removal” which threatened further action, including an eviction notice. The overdue water account was said to be $210.79. The landlord proposed including the water in the weekly rent.
I am not satisfied that the tenant was “harassed”, as that word is understood in the context of section 38 of the Act (quiet enjoyment). That said, the threat of an eviction notice at this time was arguably a breach of Schedule 5, because termination for failure to pay water charges was not permitted in June 2020, and there were restrictions on termination for rent arrears. I would accept that it was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I have taken this into account when arriving at my award for general damages, above.
The landlord’s “final notice” about the water charges is best placed in the context of an unlawful increase of the rent because it was the issue with overdue water which led to the signing of a new tenancy agreement. The landlord does not appear to have issued any breach notices about water charges after it was included in the rent. Healthy Homes Standards
I have considered whether the Healthy Homes Standards applied to the premises. This depends on the commencement provisions in the applicable regulations.
For the Healthy Homes Standards to apply, the various tenancy agreements would have had to amount to a “renewal” of the tenancy pursuant to clause 2 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. In my view, they should more properly be seen as variations to the terms of an existing tenancy.
There is also the difficulty that, even if the tenancy agreement signed in June 2020 was a renewal, it was not a renewal agreed between 1 July 2021 and 28 August 2022, as required by clause 2 of the regulations. Therefore, I consider that the Healthy Homes Standards did not apply to the tenancy.
This does not mean the landlord had no relevant obligations. Pursuant to section 45 of the Act, the landlord had an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provide that residential premises must be free from dampness (clause 15) although, in my view, this needs to be caused by a breach of some other obligation by the landlord.
The tenant provided a letter from Health NZ which stated that her family was living in poor housing conditions which needed to improve for the benefit of her son, who had been admitted to hospital on 23 June 2023 with bronchitis. The letter was signed by a doctor at the hospital, but it would not have been based on direct knowledge of the premises.
The tenant also provided a letter from a clinical psychologist supporting the tenant’s application for housing. The letter makes no reference to the condition of the premises.
A letter was provided from a local charitable trust dated 29 May 2023. The letter, addressed to the landlord, said that the tenant and her family were experiencing ongoing coldness, dampness, mildew, and cockroaches. The family were having to run the heat pump and a dehumidifier to heat the home and remove dampness. They had also bought products to try to get rid of the cockroaches.
The tenant provided a “Whanau Assessment and Plan” dated 3 May 2023 from a development trust. The assessment noted the following: • The property had ceiling insulation and double-lined curtains in the living room and bedrooms. • The house was cold in winter. • The windows had broken latches. • The kitchen and bathroom had extractor fans. • The house was damp in the living room, bathroom, kitchen and 3 bedrooms. • There were no water or drainage leaks. • There was a problem with pests. • The family slept in the same room for warmth during the winter due to the bedrooms being cold and damp.
The report contained the following comment: Habitat fitted the house with brand new curtains in 2021. Whanau advised that the curtains have made a big difference to the warmth of the house. There is draught coming through the front and back door. There are broken window latches in the living room and bathroom causing draught. The window in the lounge has glass coming away from the framing, this window does not close properly. The whanau tells me the extractor fan in the bathroom goes straight into the ceiling. There is mould around the base of the shower, the skirting next to the shower has become rotten (damp area). There is mould in the bathroom around the window framing. Whanau tells me of having to wash this three times a month. Whanau advise there is a cockroach infestation in the house.
After the hearing, the tenant was given an opportunity to obtain any photographs taken at this assessment. Two photographs were provided, without any explanation. They appear to show mould on a wall and in the corner of a ceiling of unspecified room(s). There was also a video of a pest infestation.
The landlord said the property was newly renovated internally at the start of the tenancy and the works had been signed off by the Council. He had always made repairs if asked or if found during an inspection (although he accepted that he was not conducting inspections frequently). The landlord said he repaired the shower silicone, a damp floor area around the shower caused by a leak from the missing silicone, repairs from children breaking window latches, and pest control (twice) for cockroaches. The landlord said he checked the windows every winter for draughts and replaced window seals. He also mentioned a repair to the back door flap.
The landlord said he contributed to the cost of Habitat installing thermal curtains. He explained to Habitat that there would always be mould in the bathroom if the tenants did not use the extractor fan. The heat pump was more than sufficient to heat the house. The landlord said cockroaches were attracted to dirty environments and provided a factsheet from Health NZ. The landlord said he did not see mould when he inspected and there was only mildew in the bathroom. The landlord said Habitat only noted mould in the bathroom.
A handyman employed by the landlord gave a written statement. He noted that damaged window rubbers were replaced with new seals every winter. Window latches were repaired (by Homesafe Services) when required. The particle board in the bathroom was replaced due to a leak from the shower: “This was caused by the removal of all the silicone from around the bottom of the shower.” According to the handyman, the tenant said her children had done this. The silicone was replaced, and new flooring installed in front of the shower and in the hallway. Discussion
There is some evidence of a problem with dampness and mould at the premises. Certainly, the tenant raised the issue with her medical providers and local support organisations.
However, the extent of the issue is difficult to determine. The assessment by the development trust provides the most cogent evidence of a problem but is at odds with the evidence of the landlord and his handymen. It may be that some of the issues identified by the trust (such as broken latches and draughty windows) were subsequently remedied by the maintenance regimen described by the landlord. In particular, there is a lack of photographic evidence available to enable the Tribunal to come to its own assessment of the extent and nature of the problem.
The cause of the issues is also difficult to ascertain. Problems with cold and dampness could have been caused by not using the heat pump or the extractor fans and there was an implication in the letter from the charitable trust about affordability. It is not clear that the issues (including with pests) were because of the landlord’s failure to perform his obligations or because the tenant did not use the heating facilities or keep the premises sufficiently tidy. The tenant complained that the house did not have a ground moisture barrier, but there is no evidence supporting this and unless the Healthy Homes Standards applied, the premises did not require one.
Ultimately, and I wish to emphasise that my finding is based on the available evidence, I am not satisfied that there was a serious issue with dampness or mould, or that it was caused by a maintenance failure on the part of the landlord. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has established that the rent was increased unlawfully. I award the tenant the filing fee.
The landlord requested suppression. For the reason given above, I decline suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986214 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 48 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986214 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 48 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

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