What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4988751?

The tribunal order states: Phil Lovrin and Andrea Lovrin-Smith must pay olivia Ann Brown and Devan

How much money was awarded in case 4988751?

Compensation: Agreed final power bil…: $223.90 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Discomfort and stress…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Extra power cost was n…: $155.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4988751?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4988751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11170569-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4988751?

The tribunal order states: Phil Lovrin and Andrea Lovrin-Smith must pay olivia Ann Brown and Devan

How much money was awarded in case 4988751?

Compensation: Agreed final power bil…: $223.90 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Discomfort and stress…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Extra power cost was n…: $155.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4988751?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4988751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11170569-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

426 Seagrove Road, Waiau Pa, RD 4, Pukekohe 2679 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4988751 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4988751 — net $1,155.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Discomfort and stress due to the landlords’ failure to comply with heating standards	$750.00	Discomfort and stress due to the landlords’ failure to comply with heating standards
Compensation: Extra power cost was not reimbursed previously	$155.00	Extra power cost was not reimbursed previously
Compensation: Agreed final power bill	$223.90	Agreed final power bill
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,155.90
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,155.90

The hearing was held on 3 December 2024.

Both parties attended the hearing. Introduction

This matter concerns an application brought by Ms. Olivia Brown and Mr. Devan Ferguson (the tenants) against Mr. Philip Lovrin and Ms. Andrea Lovrin-Smith (the landlords). The primary issue revolves around alleged non-compliance by the landlords with obligations under sections 45(1)(bb) , 45(1)(c), and 45(1AC) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants assert that the landlords failed to meet standards related to the Healthy Homes Standards, including the absence of sufficient heating, issues surrounding potable water, and associated costs incurred by the tenants. Additional claims include disputes over shared power costs and allegations of breaches of quiet enjoyment.

The tenancy commenced on 28 February 2022 and ended on 19 February 2024, lasting approximately one year and 11 months. This is not in dispute.

Ms Brown described the property as a rural lifestyle block with appealing natural surroundings, providing a peaceful and picturesque environment. Despite these attributes, Ms. Brown identified several issues with the property.

By consent, I categorised the complaints into the following groups during the hearing:

Healthy Homes Standards: a. Failure to provide a compliance report with the tenancy agreement. b. Lack of adequate heating in the home. c. General non-compliance with Healthy Homes standards.

Water Issues: a. Failure to provide potable water. b. Refusal to reimburse costs for water testing. c. It is necessary for the tenants to rent or use a water filtration system due to water contamination.

Power Costs: a. Shared electricity meter with a neighbouring property, leading to disputes over power usage and billing. b. Allegations of unpaid power costs at the end of the tenancy.

Breach of Quiet Enjoyment: a. Allegations of stress caused by the landlords’ actions or omissions, including a perceived lack of responsiveness and judgmental behaviour.

On 31 October 2022, Ms Brown issued a 14-day notice to remedy. The contents of the 14-day notice to remedy are similar to the groups above. Standard of proof

The tenants must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.

In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: “It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.

This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.

Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: “... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.”

It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Failure to Comply with Healthy Home Standards

Olivia Ann Brown and Devan James Ferguson claim that the landlords have breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Olivia Ann Brown and Devan James Ferguson consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

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). Ms Brown’s allegations

Ms. Brown alleged the following failures by the landlords regarding compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards: Missing Healthy Homes Compliance Report:

When Ms. Brown signed the tenancy agreement, pages 7 to 10, which contained the Healthy Homes compliance information, were missing.

She researched the missing pages and realised they related to heating requirements. When she questioned the landlords, they responded that they were uncertain about what size of heating was needed and were considering installing a fireplace by winter.

Despite assurances, Healthy Homes compliance information was never provided during her tenancy. Lack of Fixed Heating:

The landlords did not install any fixed heating system within the 90-day compliance period as required by the Healthy Homes Standards. Ms. Brown noted that the landlords provided two oil heaters instead, but: a. One was unsafe due to exposed wires. b. The heaters were inadequate to warm the large house, especially the living areas.

She eventually had to purchase additional heaters herself.

She highlighted the landlords’ responsibility under the standards to provide fixed heating that complies with the regulations. Two-Week Notice to Remedy:

On 31 October 2022, Ms. Brown issued a two-week notice to remedy. In the notice, she specifically requested: a. A Healthy Homes compliance report to be completed and included in the tenancy agreement. b. Installation of proper heating that complies with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Following the notice, the landlords conducted an inspection and indicated they would install a fireplace. Although photos were taken, no heating system was installed during her tenancy. Adverse Effects:

Ms. Brown and her children experienced discomfort during cold months due to the lack of heating. She noted that the cold exacerbated her daughter’s asthma, causing her to wheeze and cough.

Mould growth occurred due to her inability to adequately heat the home, requiring her to regularly clean window sills and walls. Mr Lovrin’s Response

Mr. Lovrin provided the following responses and explanations to Ms. Brown's allegations: Missing Healthy Homes Compliance Information:

He acknowledged that some parts of the compliance section in the tenancy agreement were incomplete, specifically the heating section, because: a. At the time of signing, he did not have the necessary information about the kilowatt output required for the heating system. b. The legislation allowed for flexibility regarding heating compliance for homes built according to the 2008 building code, such as this property.

He later clarified that the home was compliant with all other Healthy Homes Standards, including insulation and ventilation. Timing for Compliance:

He argued that, based on the Healthy Homes regulations, the property did not require fixed heating until 12 February 2023 due to the property was built to the 2008 building code. This date fell after the statutory grace period for newer properties. Efforts to Install Fixed Heating:

Mr. Lovrin obtained quotes for a fireplace during the tenancy but faced difficulties, including: a. A lack of qualified installers who could secure council consent. b. Financial hardship, including mortgage arrears, which made it challenging to pay for installation.

He maintained that he was actively seeking a solution but ultimately did not complete the installation during Ms. Brown’s tenancy. Provision of Portable Heaters:

He provided two portable oil heaters to Ms. Brown. He stated that: a. He was unaware of the reported wiring issues with one of the heaters, as Ms. Brown had not informed him. b. He believed these heaters, combined with the house’s insulation, would suffice to keep the home warm.

He questioned Ms. Brown’s claim that the house was cold, pointing out that he and his family had previously lived there comfortably without complaints about heating.

Mr. Lovrin described the house as warm and dry, with insulation and ventilation that met the Healthy Homes Standards, except for the fixed heating component. Financial Constraints:

He noted that financial challenges during the tenancy contributed to delays in installing a compliant heating system. While he did not use this as an excuse, he indicated it was a significant factor in the lack of action. Issues

There are two issues I need to consider. a. Was Mr Lovrin correct in saying he did not need to comply with the heating standards until 12 February 2023? b. How long did the property not comply with the heating standards? Was Mr Lovrin correct in saying he had until 12 February 2023 to comply with the heating standards?

The starting point is Clause 2(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Home Standards) Regulation 2019 (“RT (HHS) 2019”), which says the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the property must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.

Ms Brown’s tenancy commenced on 28 February 2022, and therefore, the property must comply with Healthy Homes standards by 28 May 2022 (the 90th day from the tenancy commencement date), unless Clause 2(3A) RT (HHS) 2019 of Schedule 1 applies, which gives the compliance date to 12 February 2023. Clause 2(3A) RT (HHS) 2019 of Schedule 1 states: Despite subclause (2), for the general tenancy of a modern dwelling or relevant apartment that has an HH start day in the period starting on the date on which the amendment regulations come into force (the commencement date) and ending on the date that is 9 months after the commencement date, the date for compliance with the heating standard as amended by the amendment regulations is the date that is 9 months after the commencement date.

In layman’s terms, unless the property is a modern dwelling, the property must comply with the healthy home standards within 90 days of the tenancy commencement.

What is a modern dwelling? Clause 3(1) RT (HHS) 2019 states: in relation to premises or a tenancy building, means premises or a tenancy building that first received building consent— (a)on or after the following date for its zone: (i)30 September 2008, for zone 1: (ii)30 June 2008, for zone 2: (iii) 31 October 2007, for zone 3; or ...

In the present case, the regulatory body overseeing Mr Lovrin’s property’s building code compliance is Franklin District Council. This is not disputed because Mr Lovrin submitted evidence of a code compliance certificate (“CCC”). At the end of the CCC, Franklin District Council recorded: On behalf of: Franklin District Council Date Building Consent received: 04 Mar 2008 Date: issued: 11 April 2008 Date CCC issued: 02 Oct 2008

Which zone does the property fall under? Clause 3(1) RT (HHS) 2019 states: NZS 4218:2009 means New Zealand Standard NZS 4218:2009 (Thermal Insulation—Housing and Small Buildings) zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3 have the same meanings as in Appendix B of NZS 4218:2009.

Appendix B of NZS 4218:2009 states: Zone 1 comprises the Thames-Coromandel District, the Franklin District, and all districts north of these, and all offshore islands north of 37° 15' south.

Mr Lovrin’s property falls under Franklin District Council Zone 1, and Franklin District Council received building consent on 04 March 2008. This means that, under Clause 2(3A) RT (HHS) 2019 of Schedule, his property is not a modern dwelling. To qualify as a modern dwelling, Franklin District Council must receive building consent on or after 30 September 2009.

Here, I have reached the conclusion that Mr Lovrin must comply with Healthy Homes standards by 28 May 2022. Mr Lovin was not correct in saying he had until 12 February 2023 to comply with Healthy Homes standards which include the heating standards.

How long did the property not comply with the heating standards?

Mr Lovrin’s property did not comply with Healthy Homes standards by 28 May 2022. In the present case, Ms Brown had to endure two winters during her 1 year and 11 months tenancy from 28 February 2022 to 19 February 2024.

I find Phil Lovrin and Andrea Lovrin-Smith 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.

I do not consider Mr Lovrin committed an unlawful act intentionally because: a. He gave Ms Brown two oil heaters; b. He paid for power bill; and c. There were efforts made to install a compliant heating system, but due to financial constraints on his part and difficulty in finding a suitably qualified person to install one fireplace.

Accordingly, I do not consider ordering Mr Lovrin to pay exemplary damages appropriate.

That said, the property was not compliant with Healthy Homes standards, and compensation for Ms Brown’s discomfort for two winters is appropriate.

Accordingly, I award Ms Brown $750 for her discomfort and stress for two winters. I consider $750 is reasonable because: a. Mr Lovrin paid for the power bill. b. Mr Lovrin provided two oil heaters to Ms Brown, and she purchased her heater(s) as well. c. There was no evidence before me suggesting the property was not warm. d. Ms Brown provided oral evidence that her children experienced discomfort during the cold months due to a lack of heating. However, I was unsure whether the discomfort was caused by the alleged lack of heating or if there were other reasons. e. There was no evidence before me to support Ms Brown’s submissions that mould growth occurred due to the inability to adequately heat the home.

To avoid doubt, I have not overlooked that Mr Lovrin failed to provide Ms Brown with a Healthy Homes statement (relating to the heating standards) under section 45(1AC) RTA, and the non-compliance was, if without reasonable excuse, also unlawful.

I do not accept Mr Lovrin’s explanation for why he did not provide the information Ms Brown requested (see paragraphs 40 and 41 above).

It is sufficient to note in this judgment that Mr Lovrin and Ms Lovrin-smith committed an unlawful act for failure to provide Healthy Homes standards to Ms Brown within 21 days after the date of receiving the request. Further compensation or exemplary damage would mean Mr Lovrin and Ms Lovrin- Smith were penalised twice for the same or similar non-compliance under section 45 RTA. Water Issues

During the hearing, l facilitated direct communication between Ms. Brown and Mr. Lovrin, allowing each to explain their perspectives and respond to the other's points.

I asked questions to clarify the landlords’ reasoning for their water treatment regime and their response to Ms. Brown’s concerns.

I examined the testing method used by Ms. Brown’s professional. The sample was taken from the tank, which naturally collects contaminants, rather than the treated tap water. I questioned whether this was the appropriate method for assessing potability.

I raised this point to highlight the challenge Ms. Brown faced in meeting the burden of proof for her claims about water quality and its effects.

I also reminded Mr. Lovrin that landlords have a legal responsibility to provide potable water under s45(1)(c) RTA, where they are required to comply with all health and safety requirements under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. I questioned why the landlords did not conduct their own water testing when Ms. Brown first raised concerns about illnesses potentially caused by the water.

Ms Brown seeks reimbursement for the professional water test, $574.89, and the rental cost of the water filtration system for 28 weeks, $335.72. She is not seeking other forms of compensation.

During the morning break, the parties had the opportunity to reflect on their positions. When the hearing resumed, Mr. Lovrin indicated he was willing to pay for some costs related to the water filter ($351.72) but did not consider it reasonable to reimburse Ms. Brown for the professional water testing in the tank.

Because the parties maintained their position, I now consider each party’s case. Ms. Brown’s Allegations

Ms. Brown raised several concerns about the water supply during the tenancy, alleging that the landlords failed to provide safe, potable water: Initial Concerns About Water Safety:

Ms. Brown questioned the safety of the water supply when she moved in, given that the property relied on a rainwater collection system.

She inquired whether the water had been tested and treated. Mr. Lovrin assured her it was safe to drink and said the tank and gutters had been cleaned before the tenancy began. Issues After Moving In:

Shortly after moving in, Ms. Brown noticed a foul smell from the water. During the first shower, she described the odour as similar to "rotten fish" or "rotten LPG." After using the water, her children developed redness and hives, and she experienced a reaction on her hands.

A water professional later inspected the tank and found mosquito larvae and green water despite the tank having been cleaned a week earlier. The professional told her the water was unsafe to drink unless properly filtered.

From August 2022, Ms Brown and her children experienced recurring symptoms of diarrhea and vomiting, which she suspected were caused by the water. She raised these concerns with the landlords but felt they were dismissed. Water Testing and Results:

In October 2022, after continued illness, Ms. Brown informed the landlords she would arrange professional water testing if the symptoms persisted.

On 21 December 2022, water test results confirmed the presence of E. coli and total coliforms, which are indicative of contamination. Ms. Brown sent the report to the landlords along with an invoice for the test, requesting reimbursement. Landlords’ Actions Regarding Treatment:

The landlords provided a chemical treatment product called "Pour and Go" but only delivered it once during the tenancy. Ms. Brown noted that the treatment required regular application and larger quantities for effective shock treatment.

Without reliable water treatment or filtration, Ms. Brown resorted to purchasing bottled water and eventually invested in a UV filtration device to make the water drinkable. Financial and Health Impact:

Ms. Brown emphasised the financial strain of purchasing bottled water and filtration equipment.

She expressed concern about the health risks of contaminated water, particularly for her children, who were repeatedly ill. Mr. Lovrin’s Response

Mr. Lovrin responded to Ms. Brown’s allegations by outlining the steps he took to manage the water supply and disputing the extent of the contamination claims: a. Tank and Gutter Cleaning: i. Before the tenancy began, the landlords hired Safe H2O, a professional company, to clean the water tank and gutters. The company also treated the tank water to ensure it was initially safe to drink. b. Filtration System: i. A filtration system was installed on the tank, including:

A 20-micron filter to remove larger debris.

A 1-micron filter, recommended for filtering Giardia and Cryptosporidium, but not E. coli.

He consulted the filtration company about alternative options, such as a UV light system, but noted that UV systems require frequent cleaning and maintenance, which he deemed impractical. Chemical Treatments:

He provided Ms. Brown with Pour and Go, a chemical treatment recommended for killing bacteria in the water supply. However: a. He stated that he continued to provide the product throughout the tenancy, contradicting Ms. Brown’s claim that it was only provided once. b. He disputed Ms. Brown's assertion that four bottles were needed for effective treatment, arguing that the manufacturer recommended two bottles for shock treatment of the 25,000-liter tank. Water Testing:

Mr. Lovrin challenged the validity of Ms. Brown’s water testing results because: a. The water sample was taken directly from the tank, not from the tap after filtration. He argued that the source water would naturally contain bacteria and that testing should have been conducted on the treated water from the tap to determine potability.

He declined to reimburse Ms. Brown for the water test, asserting that the improper sampling method invalidated the results. Health Concerns:

He questioned whether the illnesses Ms. Brown reported were linked to the water, given the lack of testing on the treated water supply.

He noted that the filtration system and chemical treatments, if used correctly, should have been sufficient to ensure potable water.

He further added that the gutters were cleaned annually, including during Ms. Brown’s tenancy. This frequency met standard practices for properties relying on rainwater collection systems. Efforts to Address Issues:

He emphasised that he responded promptly to Ms. Brown’s concerns, including inspecting the tank and addressing her complaints about water quality.

He contended that the water supply was managed according to reasonable standards for rural properties with rainwater collection systems. My view

My views on the water issues are based on the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. I acknowledged the complexity of the situation and asked several key points during the hearing: Responsibility for Potable Water

Under s45 (1)(c) RTA, landlords are responsible for ensuring the water is safe to drink. If tenants raise concerns about the water quality, the landlords are responsible for investigating and addressing the issues effectively, including conducting proper testing if necessary.

On the other hand, Mr Lovrin did not sit idle and did nothing after Ms. Brown first reported health concerns in her 14-day notice to remedy.

Actions taken by Mr Lovrin a. Initial Cleaning of the Tank and Gutters: i. Before the tenancy commenced, Mr. Lovrin engaged a professional company, Safe H2O, to clean the water tank and gutters. ii. The tank was reportedly treated at that time to ensure the water was safe to drink. b. Installation of a Filtration System: i. He installed a filtration system on the water tank, which included:

A 20-micron filter to remove larger debris.

A 1-micron filter, which filters out contaminants like Giardia and Cryptosporidium but does not eliminate E. coli. c. Provision of Chemical Treatment: i. He supplied Ms. Brown with Pour and Go, a chemical product designed to treat water and kill bacteria. ii. He claimed to have used this product multiple times during the tenancy, although Ms. Brown argued it was only delivered to her and used once. d. Inspection of the Tank: i. After Ms. Brown reported mosquito larvae in the tank and expressed concerns about illness, Mr. Lovrin inspected the water tank. ii. He acknowledged the presence of larvae and treated the tank again.

I prefer Mr. Lovrin’s evidence that he used Pour and Go multiple times because the tenants were not aware of every instance the treatment was applied. There was no evidence to suggest Ms. Brown was present every time Mr. Lovrin used Pour and Go. On the other hand, Ms. Brown did not dispute that Mr. Lovrin came to the property to perform the treatment.

I raised concerns about the validity of Ms. Brown’s water test, as the sample was taken directly from the tank rather than the tap. Contamination in the tank is expected due to the rainwater collection system, but it does not necessarily indicate that the treated tap water was unsafe to drink.

Clause 4(1) Schedule of the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022 states the maximum acceptable value for E coli is less than 1 in 100 mL of sample. In Ms Brown’s test report, the sample was taken from the tank and it contained 66 most probable number of organisms (or MPN) per 100 mL.

The lack of testing at the point of consumption (the tap) is a significant gap in the evidence linking the E. coli contamination to the water consumed by Ms Brown and the occupants in the house.

I reached this conclusion because of Mr Lovrin’s use of the chemical treatment “Pour and Go” and the filtration system installed on the tank. These measures, if applied correctly, might have mitigated contamination to less than 1 in 100mL of sample.

Ms Brown also faced another hurdle. That is, Ms Brown claimed that her and her children’s illness was due to E. coli contamination. She stated that she visited a doctor and sent samples for testing after symptoms of illness started in August 2022, which confirmed a diagnosis of Campylobacter, a waterborne illness.

The professional water test in December 2022 detected the presence of E. coli and other bacterial contaminants, which Ms. Brown linked to their symptoms. In the same report, the test result for Campylobacter was “not detected”.

Ms. Brown carried the burden of proof to demonstrate that the water quality issues more likely than not caused her and her children’s illnesses. Her challenges in establishing this connection without testing results from the treated tap water, which might have shown whether the contamination persisted after filtration and treatment. Conclusion

During the hearing, I encouraged the parties to settle without my formal ruling. I made it clear that my decision might disappoint one or both parties.

I acknowledge that Mr Lovrin offered to pay for the rental cost of the water filtration system between 3 August 2023 and 16 February 2024, or 28 weeks, for a total of $335.72.

I cannot overlook Mr Lovrin’s efforts to address Ms Brown’s concerns. Based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded Ms Brown has discharged her burden of proof due to the lack of definitive evidence from the treated tap water.

Accordingly, I must dismiss this claim.

I am not prepared to order Mr. Lovrin to pay for the rental cost of the water filtration system because I have ruled that Ms Brown has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Lovrin has not provided potable water that meets the requirements of Clause 4(1) Schedule of the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022.

I will leave this issue to Mr. Lovrin to decide whether to reimburse Ms. Brown. Power Costs:

I do not need to rule on this issue because Mr Lovrin said he would pay the $155 power bill during the tenancy and the final $223.89 power bill. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment:

Ms Brown claimed the landlords harassed her.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. Ms. Brown’s Claim of Breach of Quiet Enjoyment

Ms. Brown alleged that her right to quiet enjoyment of the property was breached due to the following: a. Stress from Landlord Actions and Inaction: i. Ms. Brown stated that the unresolved issues with potable water and heating caused her significant stress. Despite raising valid concerns, she felt ignored and dismissed by the landlords. ii. She claimed that these unresolved issues contributed to an overall lack of peace and enjoyment during her tenancy. b. Comments from Ms. Lovrin-Smith: i. Ms Brown reported that Ms Lovrin-Smith mentioned that the neighbours were “watching” her to ensure she did not bring anything inappropriate onto the property. ii. She also said Ms. Lovrin-Smith made comments about "meth addicts" and warned that prior tenants were removed because she did not like them. Ms. Brown found these remarks judgmental and intimidating, increasing her anxiety about raising concerns. c. Visits to the Property: i. Ms. Brown said the landlords or workers occasionally entered the property, which heightened her feelings of unease. However, she did not provide evidence that these visits were excessive or conducted without notice. d. General Anxiety: i. Ms. Brown described feeling anxious and fearful that she might lose her home if she pursued her complaints. She cited the landlords’ history of evicting previous tenants as a reason for her apprehension. The Landlords’ Response

No Retaliation or Harassment: a. Mr. Lovrin and Ms. Lovrin-Smith denied that they engaged in any behaviour that could be interpreted as retaliatory or intimidating. b. They stated that they maintained a professional relationship with Ms. Brown and never threatened eviction or treated her unfairly.

Visits Were Necessary and Communicated: a. Mr. Lovrin explained that all visits to the property, whether for maintenance or inspections, were necessary and communicated to Ms. Brown in advance. He said he even notified her of visits for activities like checking the paddocks or fences, which were unrelated to the rental house itself.

Denial of Judgmental Remarks: a. While acknowledging conversations with Ms. Brown, the landlords denied making judgmental or intimidating remarks. They dismissed her claim about neighbours “watching her” as a misunderstanding.

Efforts to Address Issues: a. The landlords emphasised their responsiveness to maintenance requests and other tenancy issues, highlighting that they promptly addressed most concerns unrelated to heating and water. My view On Quiet Enjoyment Related to Heating and Water:

I found that the stress and inconvenience caused by the water issues and lack of compliant heating were already addressed under those specific claims. If I ruled that including them as part of the breach of quiet enjoyment claim would amount to double-dipping. As a result, these issues were excluded from the quiet enjoyment claim. On Alleged Harassment or Intimidation:

The evidence provided by Ms. Brown did not meet the threshold for a breach of quiet enjoyment. For instance: a. The alleged remarks by Ms Lovrin-Smith and the supposed “watching” by neighbours, while concerning Ms Brown, did not amount to legal harassment or constitute a breach of quiet enjoyment under section 38(2) RTA. b. There was no evidence of excessive or unauthorised entries by the landlords independent of routine inspections and maintenances. Conclusion

I reached the conclusion that Ms. Brown’s claim for a breach of quiet enjoyment failed on the balance of probabilities and was not substantiated. I acknowledged Ms. Brown’s feelings of stress and anxiety, but they stemmed primarily from the unresolved issues with heating and water, which were dealt with in separate categories.

Accordingly, Ms Brown’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee

Because olivia Ann Brown, Devan James Ferguson have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4988751 — net $1,155.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Discomfort and stress due to the landlords’ failure to comply with heating standards	$750.00	Discomfort and stress due to the landlords’ failure to comply with heating standards
Compensation: Extra power cost was not reimbursed previously	$155.00	Extra power cost was not reimbursed previously
Compensation: Agreed final power bill	$223.90	Agreed final power bill
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,155.90
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,155.90