What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544230 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 4544230?

Compensation: Property Maintenance: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544230?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9206759-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544230 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 4544230?

Compensation: Property Maintenance: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544230?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9206759-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

101B Wheturangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4544230 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4544230 — net $2,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: property maintenance	$750.00	property maintenance
Exemplary Damages: Maintenance	$500.00	Maintenance
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond	$500.00	Failure to Lodge Bond
Exemplary damages: Discrimination	$500.00	Discrimination
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,270.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Jian Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $2,270.44 immediately as per the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] the tenant with [The tenant/s support person] and Mr Liu the landlord (who was late).
This was a fixed term tenancy for one year which started on 29 May 2022 and ended by consent on 2 April 2023. The tenancy was affected by 3 flood events, in January and February 2023.
During the first flood event, [The tenant/s] was away. The landlord and his friends moved her belongings, dried them out and stored them. [The tenant/s] says the landlord was a good neighbour and kind to do this for her.
The landlord helped remove the water in the flat. The tenant says she then cleaned and disinfected the flat over a few days and tried to live in the flat for a few days but it was not tenable. The landlord and tenant agreed that reduced rent would be paid. At some point the tenant moved to an Airbnb.
The second event occurred a few days later. This time, the carpet and underlay in the bedroom had to be removed which the landlord and tenant did together. The tenant cleaned again but found it impossible to control fungal growth, dampness and a foul smell.
By mid-February when a third flood event occurred, the tenant was worried about the property flooding again. The issues of fungal growth and damp along with a foul smell continued.
There was email correspondence on 15 and 16 February where the tenant outlined her concerns about the property not being habitable.
The tenant tried to negotiate an agreement with the landlord and sought to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord responded, referred to the flat as a basement and if it was not to standard for the tenant, giving the tenant the option of termination.
Around this time there 2 telephone conversations where the tenant says the landlord yelled at her firstly that she was over reacting to fungus and mould and that the tenant should be grateful he helped clear her belongings and secondly when full rent was expected to be paid.
Once all the damages were fixed, the tenant said she would be happy to pay full rent. The tenant and landlord agreed once the bedroom was re-carpeted, full rent would apply.
The tenant paid half rent until she moved back in on 11 March 2023. The flooring in the bedroom was not re-carpeted at the time but had a type of lino laid down.
The tenant continued to notice dampness, foul smell, black mould and pests appearing. On 18 March 2023, she outlined the difficulties of ongoing maintenance to keep the flat clean and dry and the impact on her health, peace of mind and her job. The tenant believed this was due to damaged skirting boards and gaps since the floods.
The tenant then gave notice to terminate.
The landlord asked the tenant to tenant keep to the Tenancy Agreement and pay for professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disagreed.
After the tenant signed up for a new flat and received confirmation of her bond with the bond centre, she realised the bond had not been lodged by the landlord.
She then decided to keep away from any contact with the landlord. Tenant’s Claims Compensation and Exemplary Damages for Breach of Landlord’s Obligations
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. She seeks compensation for her time used for drying, cleaning and pest control of the property after the floods.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a state of repair after the floods.
This was a natural disaster. The landlord and tenant did try to find a solution initially but the ongoing problems were not able to be solved. The tenant was largely left on her own to resolve.
At some point after the second flood when the carpet was not able to be replaced, along with ongoing dampness, mould, a foul smell and pests appearing, this tenancy should have ended.
It was not fair to expect the tenant to dry, clean, and live in sub-standard circumstances, particularly for full rent and ongoing expectation to keep drying and cleaning the flat.
The tenant had sympathy for the landlord’s situation in not getting insurance to cover the damage and ongoing expenses for the landlord. She was grateful the landlord helped move her belongings and dry these after the first flood.
However, she was the one who suffered a greater impact by not being able to live in her home.
The tenant continued to pay $200.00 rent while not being able to use the premises. She sought professional cleaning to be obtained by the landlord, but this was not provided. She sought an assessment of the flat to check if it was habitable but there was no movement about this from the landlord. She paid full rent from 11 March 2023 until the end of the tenancy despite the ongoing issues with the premises.
On that basis, the Tribunal awards $750.00 compensation to the tenant.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal awards $500.00 exemplary damages for failure of the landlord to take further steps to remedy the flat to bring it back up to an agreed and objective habitable standard, especially when sought by the tenant. It is in the public interest that the landlord take an active role in assessing whether their property is maintained properly for their tenants after an event like the floods that occurred. Exemplary Damages for Failure to Lodge Bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged 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. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord admitted he did not lodge the bond and it was an oversight. He says he thought his wife had lodged the bond, but hadn’t. The landlord says he returned the bond a few days after the tenant moved out.
I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says he has had 20-30 tenants and been a landlord for a number of years. Given the landlord’s experience as a landlord, the excuse of an oversight is not accepted. The bond belongs to the tenant and should be kept with the Bond Centre for safekeeping in case of any dispute arising for the tenancy. It is not to be used unilaterally by the landlord to satisfy disputes, especially where there is no agreement. It is in the public interest landlords comply with lodging the bond as required.
The Tribunal makes an award of $500.00 exemplary damages for this breach. Exemplary Damages – Yelling (Breach of Quiet Enjoyment)
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed her by yelling at her twice.
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.
The landlord said he raised his voice to the tenant but did not yell at her. The tenant clearly articulated the 2 occasions when the landlord yelled at her, about putting the rent up again and the second time when she gave her notice and disagreed with her responsibility for a professional clean.
The tenant said the landlord would calm down the next day.
In this situation with the floods and uncertainty, it was a stressful time for everyone and likely in the heat of the moment. The landlord should not have raised his voice to the tenant. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied the conduct amounted to harassment of the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Exemplary Damages Racial Slurs (Discrimination)
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord discriminated against them.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlord’s wife made a derogatory remark about her race after she complained of ongoing damp, mould, a foul smell and pests. There was reference about her coming from a third world country.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant had a security camera which caught the conversation between the landlord and his wife. The parties were all aware of the security camera in the flat. She thought she had a good relationship with them. She now feels manipulated. She says this was her first time renting alone and taking on a tenancy since she came to New Zealand in 2019.
It is in the public interest that where a tenant has come to New Zealand from another country, they are not discriminated against and given less or something different than an ordinary New Zealander would expect. All landlords and tenants should be treated with fairness and respect. The standard of living that is relevant is the New Zealand standard.
Because of this, the Tribunal awards exemplary damages of $500.00. This is on the lower end of the scale because on balance interactions were perceived to be more positive than negative between landlord and tenant.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4544230 — net $2,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: property maintenance	$750.00	property maintenance
Exemplary Damages: Maintenance	$500.00	Maintenance
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond	$500.00	Failure to Lodge Bond
Exemplary damages: Discrimination	$500.00	Discrimination
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,270.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,270.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Jian Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $2,270.44 immediately as per the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] the tenant with [The tenant/s support person] and Mr Liu the landlord (who was late).
This was a fixed term tenancy for one year which started on 29 May 2022 and ended by consent on 2 April 2023. The tenancy was affected by 3 flood events, in January and February 2023.
During the first flood event, [The tenant/s] was away. The landlord and his friends moved her belongings, dried them out and stored them. [The tenant/s] says the landlord was a good neighbour and kind to do this for her.
The landlord helped remove the water in the flat. The tenant says she then cleaned and disinfected the flat over a few days and tried to live in the flat for a few days but it was not tenable. The landlord and tenant agreed that reduced rent would be paid. At some point the tenant moved to an Airbnb.
The second event occurred a few days later. This time, the carpet and underlay in the bedroom had to be removed which the landlord and tenant did together. The tenant cleaned again but found it impossible to control fungal growth, dampness and a foul smell.
By mid-February when a third flood event occurred, the tenant was worried about the property flooding again. The issues of fungal growth and damp along with a foul smell continued.
There was email correspondence on 15 and 16 February where the tenant outlined her concerns about the property not being habitable.
The tenant tried to negotiate an agreement with the landlord and sought to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord responded, referred to the flat as a basement and if it was not to standard for the tenant, giving the tenant the option of termination.
Around this time there 2 telephone conversations where the tenant says the landlord yelled at her firstly that she was over reacting to fungus and mould and that the tenant should be grateful he helped clear her belongings and secondly when full rent was expected to be paid.
Once all the damages were fixed, the tenant said she would be happy to pay full rent. The tenant and landlord agreed once the bedroom was re-carpeted, full rent would apply.
The tenant paid half rent until she moved back in on 11 March 2023. The flooring in the bedroom was not re-carpeted at the time but had a type of lino laid down.
The tenant continued to notice dampness, foul smell, black mould and pests appearing. On 18 March 2023, she outlined the difficulties of ongoing maintenance to keep the flat clean and dry and the impact on her health, peace of mind and her job. The tenant believed this was due to damaged skirting boards and gaps since the floods.
The tenant then gave notice to terminate.
The landlord asked the tenant to tenant keep to the Tenancy Agreement and pay for professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disagreed.
After the tenant signed up for a new flat and received confirmation of her bond with the bond centre, she realised the bond had not been lodged by the landlord.
She then decided to keep away from any contact with the landlord. Tenant’s Claims Compensation and Exemplary Damages for Breach of Landlord’s Obligations
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. She seeks compensation for her time used for drying, cleaning and pest control of the property after the floods.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a state of repair after the floods.
This was a natural disaster. The landlord and tenant did try to find a solution initially but the ongoing problems were not able to be solved. The tenant was largely left on her own to resolve.
At some point after the second flood when the carpet was not able to be replaced, along with ongoing dampness, mould, a foul smell and pests appearing, this tenancy should have ended.
It was not fair to expect the tenant to dry, clean, and live in sub-standard circumstances, particularly for full rent and ongoing expectation to keep drying and cleaning the flat.
The tenant had sympathy for the landlord’s situation in not getting insurance to cover the damage and ongoing expenses for the landlord. She was grateful the landlord helped move her belongings and dry these after the first flood.
However, she was the one who suffered a greater impact by not being able to live in her home.
The tenant continued to pay $200.00 rent while not being able to use the premises. She sought professional cleaning to be obtained by the landlord, but this was not provided. She sought an assessment of the flat to check if it was habitable but there was no movement about this from the landlord. She paid full rent from 11 March 2023 until the end of the tenancy despite the ongoing issues with the premises.
On that basis, the Tribunal awards $750.00 compensation to the tenant.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal awards $500.00 exemplary damages for failure of the landlord to take further steps to remedy the flat to bring it back up to an agreed and objective habitable standard, especially when sought by the tenant. It is in the public interest that the landlord take an active role in assessing whether their property is maintained properly for their tenants after an event like the floods that occurred. Exemplary Damages for Failure to Lodge Bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged 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. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord admitted he did not lodge the bond and it was an oversight. He says he thought his wife had lodged the bond, but hadn’t. The landlord says he returned the bond a few days after the tenant moved out.
I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says he has had 20-30 tenants and been a landlord for a number of years. Given the landlord’s experience as a landlord, the excuse of an oversight is not accepted. The bond belongs to the tenant and should be kept with the Bond Centre for safekeeping in case of any dispute arising for the tenancy. It is not to be used unilaterally by the landlord to satisfy disputes, especially where there is no agreement. It is in the public interest landlords comply with lodging the bond as required.
The Tribunal makes an award of $500.00 exemplary damages for this breach. Exemplary Damages – Yelling (Breach of Quiet Enjoyment)
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed her by yelling at her twice.
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.
The landlord said he raised his voice to the tenant but did not yell at her. The tenant clearly articulated the 2 occasions when the landlord yelled at her, about putting the rent up again and the second time when she gave her notice and disagreed with her responsibility for a professional clean.
The tenant said the landlord would calm down the next day.
In this situation with the floods and uncertainty, it was a stressful time for everyone and likely in the heat of the moment. The landlord should not have raised his voice to the tenant. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied the conduct amounted to harassment of the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Exemplary Damages Racial Slurs (Discrimination)
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord discriminated against them.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlord’s wife made a derogatory remark about her race after she complained of ongoing damp, mould, a foul smell and pests. There was reference about her coming from a third world country.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant had a security camera which caught the conversation between the landlord and his wife. The parties were all aware of the security camera in the flat. She thought she had a good relationship with them. She now feels manipulated. She says this was her first time renting alone and taking on a tenancy since she came to New Zealand in 2019.
It is in the public interest that where a tenant has come to New Zealand from another country, they are not discriminated against and given less or something different than an ordinary New Zealander would expect. All landlords and tenants should be treated with fairness and respect. The standard of living that is relevant is the New Zealand standard.
Because of this, the Tribunal awards exemplary damages of $500.00. This is on the lower end of the scale because on balance interactions were perceived to be more positive than negative between landlord and tenant.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544230 — Exemplary damages at 101B Wheturangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544230 — Exemplary damages at 101B Wheturangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions