What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4575990 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 4575990?

Compensation: $1,930.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4575990?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4575990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9392707-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4575990 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 4575990?

Compensation: $1,930.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4575990?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4575990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9392707-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4575990 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4575990 — net $1,950.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,930.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,950.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,950.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,950.44 immediately as per the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 th September 2023. Background
The tenancy began on 26 th March 2023 with a weekly rent of $245.00.
There were 3 other tenants living at the address occupying a room each.
The tenant signed a residential tenancy agreement with the landlord to occupy a single room. The landlord added a condition specifying the termination notice as 3 weeks.
The tenant paid a bond of NZD $735.00 equivalent via WeChat in Chinese currency.
Soon after moving in, the tenant noticed that a corner of a wall in her room was damp.
The tenant raised this with the landlord but the landlord said that there was nothing wrong with the house and that it just needed to be wiped down.
Not long after, the tenant’s room and her belongings became affected by mould and the tenant requested for the landlord to provide her with a HHS report.
The landlord then served the tenant with a 3-week termination notice. The landlord said that her cousin needed a place to stay due to the Auckland flooding.
Before the 3-week period was up, the tenant found somewhere else to stay and parties agreed to terminate the tenancy earlier.
The tenancy ended on 21 st May 2023. Claims
[The tenant/s] wanted a refund of all her rent paid as well as exemplary damages. The rent paid in total was $1,930.00.
The tenant claimed that the landlord had breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, failing to provide a source of heating, and failing to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
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.
Furthermore, the tenant said that the landlord failed to 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. See section 19(1) RTA.
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 RTA.
The tenant says that the termination notice was given in retaliation of the tenant requesting HHS information.
Giving a notice in retaliation is an unlawful act and maximum exemplary damages of $6,500.00 can be awarded under section 54(3).
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the HHS within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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. RTA applies but no exemplary damages awarded
The landlord first contended that the RTA did not apply as the tenant was only occupying a single room of the premises.
However, as the landlord was not living at the same address, the exception under the section 5(1)(n) RTA do not apply. The exception only applies if the landlord was living at the same address as the tenant at same time.
I accept that the landlord may not have known that the RTA applied including all the obligations under the RTA.
The need to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, the need to comply with HHS are all related with knowing that the RTA applies first.
As I accept that the landlord was unsure, I do not find that any of the RTA breaches were intentional. Therefore, I do not award any exemplary damages against the landlord.
I acknowledge that the landlord has obtained a satisfactorily HHS report in June 2023.
It is critically important that the landlord ensures that the landlord complies with all the provisions under the RTA for any future tenants.
Under section 11(3) RTA, the landlord cannot specify any shorter notice period for the termination period. The parties simply cannot agree for the tenant to accept any shorter notice period from the landlord.
If the landlord is ever found to be in breach of the RTA again, the landlord can expect to have exemplary damages ordered against her. Compensation granted
Although I do not award any exemplary damages against the landlord, the landlord has agreed to refund the tenant’s entire rent paid.
Having seen the photos of the premises, including a photo showing a wet patch prior to the tenancy and the wall being fully wet from the inside during the tenancy, I find that the premises was not provided or maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
The premises was not free from dampness and I find that the room was not fit to be rented out to any tenants.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,930.00 immediately. Filing fee reimbursement
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must also reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4575990 — net $1,950.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,930.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,950.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,950.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,950.44 immediately as per the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 th September 2023. Background
The tenancy began on 26 th March 2023 with a weekly rent of $245.00.
There were 3 other tenants living at the address occupying a room each.
The tenant signed a residential tenancy agreement with the landlord to occupy a single room. The landlord added a condition specifying the termination notice as 3 weeks.
The tenant paid a bond of NZD $735.00 equivalent via WeChat in Chinese currency.
Soon after moving in, the tenant noticed that a corner of a wall in her room was damp.
The tenant raised this with the landlord but the landlord said that there was nothing wrong with the house and that it just needed to be wiped down.
Not long after, the tenant’s room and her belongings became affected by mould and the tenant requested for the landlord to provide her with a HHS report.
The landlord then served the tenant with a 3-week termination notice. The landlord said that her cousin needed a place to stay due to the Auckland flooding.
Before the 3-week period was up, the tenant found somewhere else to stay and parties agreed to terminate the tenancy earlier.
The tenancy ended on 21 st May 2023. Claims
[The tenant/s] wanted a refund of all her rent paid as well as exemplary damages. The rent paid in total was $1,930.00.
The tenant claimed that the landlord had breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, failing to provide a source of heating, and failing to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
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.
Furthermore, the tenant said that the landlord failed to 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. See section 19(1) RTA.
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 RTA.
The tenant says that the termination notice was given in retaliation of the tenant requesting HHS information.
Giving a notice in retaliation is an unlawful act and maximum exemplary damages of $6,500.00 can be awarded under section 54(3).
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the HHS within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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. RTA applies but no exemplary damages awarded
The landlord first contended that the RTA did not apply as the tenant was only occupying a single room of the premises.
However, as the landlord was not living at the same address, the exception under the section 5(1)(n) RTA do not apply. The exception only applies if the landlord was living at the same address as the tenant at same time.
I accept that the landlord may not have known that the RTA applied including all the obligations under the RTA.
The need to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, the need to comply with HHS are all related with knowing that the RTA applies first.
As I accept that the landlord was unsure, I do not find that any of the RTA breaches were intentional. Therefore, I do not award any exemplary damages against the landlord.
I acknowledge that the landlord has obtained a satisfactorily HHS report in June 2023.
It is critically important that the landlord ensures that the landlord complies with all the provisions under the RTA for any future tenants.
Under section 11(3) RTA, the landlord cannot specify any shorter notice period for the termination period. The parties simply cannot agree for the tenant to accept any shorter notice period from the landlord.
If the landlord is ever found to be in breach of the RTA again, the landlord can expect to have exemplary damages ordered against her. Compensation granted
Although I do not award any exemplary damages against the landlord, the landlord has agreed to refund the tenant’s entire rent paid.
Having seen the photos of the premises, including a photo showing a wet patch prior to the tenancy and the wall being fully wet from the inside during the tenancy, I find that the premises was not provided or maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
The premises was not free from dampness and I find that the room was not fit to be rented out to any tenants.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,930.00 immediately. Filing fee reimbursement
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must also reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4575990 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4575990 — Tenancy dispute

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