What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4517053 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4517053?

Pest Control: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $628.57 awarded to landlord; Door Jamb: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4517053?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4517053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9196275-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4517053 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4517053?

Pest Control: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $628.57 awarded to landlord; Door Jamb: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4517053?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4517053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9196275-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4517053 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4517053 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4517053 — net $8,491.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$628.57		Rent arrears
Repairs: door jamb	$200.00		Repairs: door jamb
Bond paid and not lodged		$4,400.00	Bond paid and not lodged
Exemplary damages: breach duty to lodge bond		$1,000.00	breach duty to lodge bond
Compensation: maintenance, mould, and pest control		$1,500.00	maintenance, mould, and pest control
Exemplary damages: breach duty to provide premises		$2,400.00	breach duty to provide premises
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$828.57	$9,320.44
Net award		$8,491.87
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,491.87

Claims and awards for application 4517053 — net $8,491.87 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $628.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Repairs: door jamb

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: door jamb

Bond paid and not lodged

Amount: $4,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond paid and not lodged

Exemplary damages: breach duty to lodge bond

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach duty to lodge bond

Compensation: maintenance, mould, and pest control

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: maintenance, mould, and pest control

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Pest Control Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Michael Weaver As Trustee For The M&N Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $8,491.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Weaver represented the landlord.
These tenants first moved into the house in December 2021 when they sublet for the summer. The landlord provided them with a tenancy agreement for February 2022 – February 2023, which the tenants never signed. The tenants filed their application because they moved out on 8 December 2022 and the landlord is still holding their bond in his bank account. The tenants are concerned that the house was not fit for them to live in because of mould and damp and a lack of repairs. They also had a problem with rats. The tenants have asked the Tribunal to order compensation and exemplary damages. The landlord filed a cross application and he is claiming rent arrears, compensation for clean up costs and exemplary damages because the tenants never signed a tenancy agreement, or the bond lodgement form. The questions for the Tribunal to decide are – • Do the tenants owe rent? • Should the landlord have lodged the bond? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain? • Should the landlord pay exemplary damages? • Did the tenants leave the house in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy? • Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Do the tenants owe rent?

It is agreed evidence the tenants did not sign the fixed term tenancy agreement the landlord gave them during the sublease period. They said they had concerns about the tenancy even then. The landlord tried a number of times to get the agreement signed, even giving a 14 day notice half way through the year. The tenants never signed the bond lodgement form either.
The landlord said this was a breach and he claimed exemplary damages. This is not possible because section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) - which provides that the landlord must prepare and sign a tenancy agreement and give a copy to the tenants before the tenancy - only provides for exemplary damages against a landlord, and not against tenants who refuse to sign. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. See section 13(4) RTA.
The correct procedure for the landlord would have been to bring an application to the Tribunal earlier in the year asking for an order the tenants sign the documentation. This is an order the Tribunal would have made to protect the landlord. No application was made. This means the tenants had a verbal tenancy agreement. Their submission they had a periodic tenancy because they never signed the fixed term agreement is persuasive. I find there was a periodic tenancy, and the tenants were allowed to give a 28 notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord submitted the 28 day notice was not valid because it should have been signed – which is a requirement of 51(3) RTA. The notice was emailed instead, with the name of one of the tenants written at the bottom. The RTA also states that a notice will not be invalid simply because it does not strictly comply with section 51(3), so long as the intention is clear in the notice, and there is no unfairness to the recipient. I find the intention of the notice was clear. See section 51(4) RTA.
I find the tenants gave a valid notice that complies with the RTA. The tenancy ended on 8 December 2022. The landlord provided rent records and I calculated rent owed to that date. The tenants owe 4 days of rent because the tenant ended part way through a rent week.

Should the landlord have lodged the bond?

It is agreed evidence the tenants paid $4,400 in bond before the start of the tenancy, and the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord submitted that it was not possible for him to lodge the bond without the signatures of all the tenants on the bond form. He provided me with the relevant information from the Tenancy Services website. This information states that “missing signatures will delay processing the bond”. The website does not say a bond cannot be lodged without all the signatures. The landlord did not ask Tenancy Services for help, even though there is an 0800TENANCY number which provides free advice. He did not try to attach the bond form with his signature and see if it would be accepted. He did not apply to the Tribunal for an order requiring the tenants to sign. He is an experienced landlord and has had orders of exemplary damages made against him in the past for not lodging bonds. I am not persuaded the landlord was prevented from lodging the bond. I find the landlord 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
This landlord knows that bonds must be lodged. He has enough experience to make enquiries. I find he acted intentionally. The tenants have not been able to make a one party application for the bond. There is no guarantee they will get their money from the landlord. They have had to research their rights, make an application to the Tribunal and attend a full day hearing. It is in tenants interests that bonds are held by an independent third party and there is public interest in landlords being penalised when they do not comply with the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1,000. This is at the upper end of the scale because of the previous orders made against the landlord.

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord 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).
There is insufficient evidence about the draughts in the toilet and through the back door for me to make orders against the landlord. The landlord has the better evidence about insulation and about the specifications of the heater in the lounge. The tenants have not proved there was a breach of these standards.
The tenants were concerned that the landlord signed the HHS certificate in the tenancy agreement. Landlords are allowed to do this under the current rules.
The tenants did have good evidence about the gutters. The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. 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) RTA.
The tenants provided me with photos showing water pouring over the edge of a length of guttering at the back of the house. The tenants said this water pooled on the concrete and ran under the house. One of the tenants climbed up and emptied as much out of the gutters as he could. The landlord was asked to repair the gutters and his evidence is he did so, with the tenants watching. The tenants do not agree the gutters were cleaned because none of them recall watching the landlord and they continued to have problems with excess rainwater running under the house.
It is the landlord’s job to make sure the gutters meet the requirements of the moisture and drainage HHS. This landlord did not check the gutters before the tenancy started and there is no record of when maintenance was last done. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission because they were the ones living in the house. I find there was a breach of the moisture and drainage standard, and the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. The tenants have also claimed compensation in the amount of $1,500.
The tenants had a list of concerns from when they moved in, such as a lack of cleanliness in the house, the back section needed to be tidied, and there was rubbish that should have been removed. I find these are claims which should have been made at the start of the tenancy. It is too hard to try and establish who was responsible for what cleaning at this late stage, and it is complicated by the way the tenants took over from the previous tenancy.
I find the landlord dealt with the roof leak promptly and there were no further leaks in the hall during the tenancy. The tenants have not proved there was a breach by the landlord.
The tenants were concerned about the safety of two gas heaters, one installed in the lounge and one in the hall. The landlord said both were safe, and both worked. There is insufficient evidence for me to decide if there was a breach of the duty to maintain.
The tenants had problems with rats throughout the tenancy. I know there were rats when the tenants moved in because the landlord laid bait after seeing rats outside. The tenants provided me with photos of a rat in the kitchen. They said there were holes in the floor which allowed access from under the house. I have been provided with photos and the kitchen does look old, with gaps for rodent ingress.
The tenants asked the landlord to get professionals in, but he did not do this. Instead, he laid more bait under the house. He does not agree the rats could get in from under the house because he has previously used expanding foam to block any gaps. He also said he was relying on the tenants to monitor the bait and advise him if the problem continued, although the tenants did not recall being asked to monitor the bait.
The tenants were the ones living in the house, and I prefer their evidence about the rats. It seems likely to me that this was a problem when the tenants moved, given the landlord’s evidence about expanding foam and bait. I find the landlord should have been proactive. He should have checked on the bait and the rodent problem, and he should have engaged pest control experts when the rats continued to be a problem six months into the tenancy. I find there was a breach of the duty to repair and maintain.
The biggest issue for the tenants was mould on the ceilings and walls. The outside of the fridge even grew mould. I have been provided with photos. They wrote a 14 day notice in July and asked the landlord to address the “extreme black mould issues in every room”. They wanted the curtains drycleaned, their clothing dry cleaned, and the gutters cleared. They asked the landlord to fix the water ingress and address the root cause.
The landlord went to the house and cleaned mould off the ceilings in two of the bedrooms, and the kitchen. The hallway and rear toilet were also wiped down. A mould cleaning product was used. The curtains in one of the rooms were washed and rehung. The landlord would not pay for dry cleaning.
The tenants’ submitted that the mould in the bathroom grew back within two weeks and the mould in the other rooms grew back within a month. The tenants said the landlord blamed their housekeeping, even though they cleaned, aired their rooms, and ran dehumidifiers non-stop. Inadequate housekeeping was the landlord’s main submission at the hearing as well.
However, I found the tenants’ evidence to be credible. It seems most likely to me the house was damp because of some failing with the house, such as the gutters needing to be cleaned. We have also had expert evidence in the Tribunal that mould, once established in gib, will regrow over time. Anti mould cleaning products and painting over mould will not remove the problem. This means an existing problem with mould will resurface over time, despite the best efforts of the tenants. I find there was a breach of the duty to maintain.
The tenants have asked for $1,500 in compensation for belongings destroyed by mould and for the stress of dealing with the mould issue. I was not provided with sufficient evidence to allow compensation for lost belongings. But I am persuaded there was stress and inconvenience during the tenancy because of the mould. I find $1,500 is a reasonable amount of compensation to deal with this.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

I find the landlord has committed unlawful acts in relation to the moisture ingress HHS and the duty to repair maintain. Where a landlord acts intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord understood his duties under the RTA. I find his decisions not to check the gutters, arrange pest control and take responsibility for the mould to be intentional. The effect for the tenants was a damp home and a difficult year dealing with rats. It is in tenants’ interests that they live in safe, dry homes and there is public interest in landlords who do not comply with the RTA being penalised.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2,400. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of previous, similar Tenancy Tribunal orders against the landlord.
The tenants asked that the Tribunal take the landlord’s behaviour with other tenants into account and had some texts showing their neighbours had similar problems dealing with the landlord. I can only deal with the tenancy that is the subject of the application. I also note that the RTA jurisdiction does not extend to the references a landlord gives at the end of a tenancy.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord has claimed $180 to remove three couches left at the end of the tenancy. Landlords can be compensated if they suffer a loss as a result of the tenants’ actions. The tenants do not agree to the claim because they say the couches were there when they moved in. The landlord provided me with a quote with last year’s date on it for rubbish removal by a business owned by his son. There is no invoice because the work has not been done. I am not persuaded the landlord will remove these couches. If he leaves them for the next tenants there is no loss to compensate. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacement keys because one of the bedroom keys returned at the end of the tenancy did not open the bedroom door. The tenant in question said he returned the keys he was given and he never used the key to unlock the bedroom door during the tenancy. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence here, which means the claim is not proved. No orders are made for keys.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Two of the tenants installed clothes racks during the tenancy. The landlord has claimed the cost of removing the racks, although this work had not been carried out when we had the hearing. I am not persuaded the landlord will take the racks down, which means there is no loss to the landlord. This claim is dismissed.
One of the tenants installed an over the door hanging rack during the tenancy. This did not fit so he chiselled grooves in the door frame so the door would close. This is intentional damage. There is a claim for the cost of repair. While this repair has not been carried out either the damage is unsightly, and I am persuaded the landlord has suffered a loss. The amount claimed seems excessive and I have allowed an amount which seems reasonable to me, based on other similar orders in the Tribunal. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4517053 — net $8,491.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$628.57		Rent arrears
Repairs: door jamb	$200.00		Repairs: door jamb
Bond paid and not lodged		$4,400.00	Bond paid and not lodged
Exemplary damages: breach duty to lodge bond		$1,000.00	breach duty to lodge bond
Compensation: maintenance, mould, and pest control		$1,500.00	maintenance, mould, and pest control
Exemplary damages: breach duty to provide premises		$2,400.00	breach duty to provide premises
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$828.57	$9,320.44
Net award		$8,491.87
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,491.87

Claims and awards for application 4517053 — net $8,491.87 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $628.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Repairs: door jamb

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: door jamb

Bond paid and not lodged

Amount: $4,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond paid and not lodged

Exemplary damages: breach duty to lodge bond

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach duty to lodge bond

Compensation: maintenance, mould, and pest control

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: maintenance, mould, and pest control

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Pest Control Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Michael Weaver As Trustee For The M&N Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $8,491.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Weaver represented the landlord.
These tenants first moved into the house in December 2021 when they sublet for the summer. The landlord provided them with a tenancy agreement for February 2022 – February 2023, which the tenants never signed. The tenants filed their application because they moved out on 8 December 2022 and the landlord is still holding their bond in his bank account. The tenants are concerned that the house was not fit for them to live in because of mould and damp and a lack of repairs. They also had a problem with rats. The tenants have asked the Tribunal to order compensation and exemplary damages. The landlord filed a cross application and he is claiming rent arrears, compensation for clean up costs and exemplary damages because the tenants never signed a tenancy agreement, or the bond lodgement form. The questions for the Tribunal to decide are – • Do the tenants owe rent? • Should the landlord have lodged the bond? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain? • Should the landlord pay exemplary damages? • Did the tenants leave the house in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy? • Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Do the tenants owe rent?

It is agreed evidence the tenants did not sign the fixed term tenancy agreement the landlord gave them during the sublease period. They said they had concerns about the tenancy even then. The landlord tried a number of times to get the agreement signed, even giving a 14 day notice half way through the year. The tenants never signed the bond lodgement form either.
The landlord said this was a breach and he claimed exemplary damages. This is not possible because section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) - which provides that the landlord must prepare and sign a tenancy agreement and give a copy to the tenants before the tenancy - only provides for exemplary damages against a landlord, and not against tenants who refuse to sign. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. See section 13(4) RTA.
The correct procedure for the landlord would have been to bring an application to the Tribunal earlier in the year asking for an order the tenants sign the documentation. This is an order the Tribunal would have made to protect the landlord. No application was made. This means the tenants had a verbal tenancy agreement. Their submission they had a periodic tenancy because they never signed the fixed term agreement is persuasive. I find there was a periodic tenancy, and the tenants were allowed to give a 28 notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord submitted the 28 day notice was not valid because it should have been signed – which is a requirement of 51(3) RTA. The notice was emailed instead, with the name of one of the tenants written at the bottom. The RTA also states that a notice will not be invalid simply because it does not strictly comply with section 51(3), so long as the intention is clear in the notice, and there is no unfairness to the recipient. I find the intention of the notice was clear. See section 51(4) RTA.
I find the tenants gave a valid notice that complies with the RTA. The tenancy ended on 8 December 2022. The landlord provided rent records and I calculated rent owed to that date. The tenants owe 4 days of rent because the tenant ended part way through a rent week.

Should the landlord have lodged the bond?

It is agreed evidence the tenants paid $4,400 in bond before the start of the tenancy, and the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord submitted that it was not possible for him to lodge the bond without the signatures of all the tenants on the bond form. He provided me with the relevant information from the Tenancy Services website. This information states that “missing signatures will delay processing the bond”. The website does not say a bond cannot be lodged without all the signatures. The landlord did not ask Tenancy Services for help, even though there is an 0800TENANCY number which provides free advice. He did not try to attach the bond form with his signature and see if it would be accepted. He did not apply to the Tribunal for an order requiring the tenants to sign. He is an experienced landlord and has had orders of exemplary damages made against him in the past for not lodging bonds. I am not persuaded the landlord was prevented from lodging the bond. I find the landlord 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
This landlord knows that bonds must be lodged. He has enough experience to make enquiries. I find he acted intentionally. The tenants have not been able to make a one party application for the bond. There is no guarantee they will get their money from the landlord. They have had to research their rights, make an application to the Tribunal and attend a full day hearing. It is in tenants interests that bonds are held by an independent third party and there is public interest in landlords being penalised when they do not comply with the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1,000. This is at the upper end of the scale because of the previous orders made against the landlord.

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord 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).
There is insufficient evidence about the draughts in the toilet and through the back door for me to make orders against the landlord. The landlord has the better evidence about insulation and about the specifications of the heater in the lounge. The tenants have not proved there was a breach of these standards.
The tenants were concerned that the landlord signed the HHS certificate in the tenancy agreement. Landlords are allowed to do this under the current rules.
The tenants did have good evidence about the gutters. The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. 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) RTA.
The tenants provided me with photos showing water pouring over the edge of a length of guttering at the back of the house. The tenants said this water pooled on the concrete and ran under the house. One of the tenants climbed up and emptied as much out of the gutters as he could. The landlord was asked to repair the gutters and his evidence is he did so, with the tenants watching. The tenants do not agree the gutters were cleaned because none of them recall watching the landlord and they continued to have problems with excess rainwater running under the house.
It is the landlord’s job to make sure the gutters meet the requirements of the moisture and drainage HHS. This landlord did not check the gutters before the tenancy started and there is no record of when maintenance was last done. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission because they were the ones living in the house. I find there was a breach of the moisture and drainage standard, and the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. The tenants have also claimed compensation in the amount of $1,500.
The tenants had a list of concerns from when they moved in, such as a lack of cleanliness in the house, the back section needed to be tidied, and there was rubbish that should have been removed. I find these are claims which should have been made at the start of the tenancy. It is too hard to try and establish who was responsible for what cleaning at this late stage, and it is complicated by the way the tenants took over from the previous tenancy.
I find the landlord dealt with the roof leak promptly and there were no further leaks in the hall during the tenancy. The tenants have not proved there was a breach by the landlord.
The tenants were concerned about the safety of two gas heaters, one installed in the lounge and one in the hall. The landlord said both were safe, and both worked. There is insufficient evidence for me to decide if there was a breach of the duty to maintain.
The tenants had problems with rats throughout the tenancy. I know there were rats when the tenants moved in because the landlord laid bait after seeing rats outside. The tenants provided me with photos of a rat in the kitchen. They said there were holes in the floor which allowed access from under the house. I have been provided with photos and the kitchen does look old, with gaps for rodent ingress.
The tenants asked the landlord to get professionals in, but he did not do this. Instead, he laid more bait under the house. He does not agree the rats could get in from under the house because he has previously used expanding foam to block any gaps. He also said he was relying on the tenants to monitor the bait and advise him if the problem continued, although the tenants did not recall being asked to monitor the bait.
The tenants were the ones living in the house, and I prefer their evidence about the rats. It seems likely to me that this was a problem when the tenants moved, given the landlord’s evidence about expanding foam and bait. I find the landlord should have been proactive. He should have checked on the bait and the rodent problem, and he should have engaged pest control experts when the rats continued to be a problem six months into the tenancy. I find there was a breach of the duty to repair and maintain.
The biggest issue for the tenants was mould on the ceilings and walls. The outside of the fridge even grew mould. I have been provided with photos. They wrote a 14 day notice in July and asked the landlord to address the “extreme black mould issues in every room”. They wanted the curtains drycleaned, their clothing dry cleaned, and the gutters cleared. They asked the landlord to fix the water ingress and address the root cause.
The landlord went to the house and cleaned mould off the ceilings in two of the bedrooms, and the kitchen. The hallway and rear toilet were also wiped down. A mould cleaning product was used. The curtains in one of the rooms were washed and rehung. The landlord would not pay for dry cleaning.
The tenants’ submitted that the mould in the bathroom grew back within two weeks and the mould in the other rooms grew back within a month. The tenants said the landlord blamed their housekeeping, even though they cleaned, aired their rooms, and ran dehumidifiers non-stop. Inadequate housekeeping was the landlord’s main submission at the hearing as well.
However, I found the tenants’ evidence to be credible. It seems most likely to me the house was damp because of some failing with the house, such as the gutters needing to be cleaned. We have also had expert evidence in the Tribunal that mould, once established in gib, will regrow over time. Anti mould cleaning products and painting over mould will not remove the problem. This means an existing problem with mould will resurface over time, despite the best efforts of the tenants. I find there was a breach of the duty to maintain.
The tenants have asked for $1,500 in compensation for belongings destroyed by mould and for the stress of dealing with the mould issue. I was not provided with sufficient evidence to allow compensation for lost belongings. But I am persuaded there was stress and inconvenience during the tenancy because of the mould. I find $1,500 is a reasonable amount of compensation to deal with this.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

I find the landlord has committed unlawful acts in relation to the moisture ingress HHS and the duty to repair maintain. Where a landlord acts intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord understood his duties under the RTA. I find his decisions not to check the gutters, arrange pest control and take responsibility for the mould to be intentional. The effect for the tenants was a damp home and a difficult year dealing with rats. It is in tenants’ interests that they live in safe, dry homes and there is public interest in landlords who do not comply with the RTA being penalised.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2,400. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of previous, similar Tenancy Tribunal orders against the landlord.
The tenants asked that the Tribunal take the landlord’s behaviour with other tenants into account and had some texts showing their neighbours had similar problems dealing with the landlord. I can only deal with the tenancy that is the subject of the application. I also note that the RTA jurisdiction does not extend to the references a landlord gives at the end of a tenancy.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord has claimed $180 to remove three couches left at the end of the tenancy. Landlords can be compensated if they suffer a loss as a result of the tenants’ actions. The tenants do not agree to the claim because they say the couches were there when they moved in. The landlord provided me with a quote with last year’s date on it for rubbish removal by a business owned by his son. There is no invoice because the work has not been done. I am not persuaded the landlord will remove these couches. If he leaves them for the next tenants there is no loss to compensate. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacement keys because one of the bedroom keys returned at the end of the tenancy did not open the bedroom door. The tenant in question said he returned the keys he was given and he never used the key to unlock the bedroom door during the tenancy. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence here, which means the claim is not proved. No orders are made for keys.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Two of the tenants installed clothes racks during the tenancy. The landlord has claimed the cost of removing the racks, although this work had not been carried out when we had the hearing. I am not persuaded the landlord will take the racks down, which means there is no loss to the landlord. This claim is dismissed.
One of the tenants installed an over the door hanging rack during the tenancy. This did not fit so he chiselled grooves in the door frame so the door would close. This is intentional damage. There is a claim for the cost of repair. While this repair has not been carried out either the damage is unsightly, and I am persuaded the landlord has suffered a loss. The amount claimed seems excessive and I have allowed an amount which seems reasonable to me, based on other similar orders in the Tribunal. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4517053 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4517053 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe rent?

Should the landlord have lodged the bond?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe rent?

Should the landlord have lodged the bond?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions