What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4584329 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 4584329?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Electricity Costs: $66.48 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rug Doctor Hire: $64.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4584329?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4584329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9434513-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4584329 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 4584329?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Electricity Costs: $66.48 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rug Doctor Hire: $64.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4584329?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4584329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9434513-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4584329 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4584329 — Healthy homes | 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 4584329 — net $369.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Electricity costs	$66.48		Electricity costs
Rug doctor hire	$64.04		Rug doctor hire
Compensation – breaches of quiet enjoyment		$200.00	Compensation – breaches of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages – failure to give receipts for rent		$100.00	Exemplary damages – failure to give receipts for rent
Exemplary damages – failure to provide HHS information		$200.00	Exemplary damages – failure to provide HHS information
Total award	$130.52	$500.00
Net award		$369.48
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$369.48

Claims and awards for application 4584329 — net $369.48 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Electricity costs

Amount: $66.48
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electricity costs

Rug doctor hire

Amount: $64.04
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rug doctor hire

Compensation – breaches of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation – breaches of quiet enjoyment

Exemplary damages – failure to give receipts for rent

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages – failure to give receipts for rent

Exemplary damages – failure to provide HHS information

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages – failure to provide HHS information

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages

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] $369.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s]

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I heard oral evidence from them both. Each provided documentary evidence. Each made submissions.
The tenants have applied for compensation for alleged breaches of their quiet enjoyment and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts.
The landlord has cross applied. He seeks costs totalling $130.52 for alleged breaches by the tenants.
The landlord’s cross application has not yet been processed by Tenancy Services. The parties agreed that the Tribunal should determine the landlord’s claims as well. Background
The tenancy started on 8 December 2020. Before then, one of the tenants rented the premises from another landlord. The tenancy was renewed more than once. It ended by agreement on 21 May 2023.
The parties enjoyed a good relationship during the tenancy, but when the landlord did a bond inspection, he commented (according to the tenants) that the place was ‘disgusting’. That comment, and the landlord’s intention to seek costs from the bond, resulted in the tenants making their application. Then followed, quite recently, the landlord’s cross application.
The tenants’ application was set for hearing today. By consent, the Tribunal will also decide the landlord’s (as yet unprocessed) application. Issues
The issue to be determined are these: •Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond within time? •Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to always provide receipts for cash payment of rent? •Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure that the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) certifications in the tenancy agreement were completed? •Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? •Did the landlord unlawfully increase the rent? •Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the tenancy?

If so, should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond within time?

The landlord accepts that he did not lodge the bond within the required 23- working days after receiving it. The bond was not lodged until 23 June 2023, after the tenancy had ended.
The landlord said he overlooked lodging the bond because he had broken his wrist, was in a plaster cast and was moving from a farm while disabled from his injury.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Those factors are: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
In this case I do not find the criteria for exemplary damages met in so far as the delayed bond lodgement is concerned. I accept the landlord’s evidence that, due to circumstances, he overlooked lodging the bond.
Had he not lodged the bond at all, I would have awarded exemplary damages. But once alerted to his failure, he acted and lodged the bond. Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to always provide receipts for cash payment of rent?
I am persuaded to award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide written receipts for the cash payments of rent as required by section 29 RTA.
I award the tenant $100.00 – the maximum award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act is $350.00.
I have limited the amount to a token amount because the landlord did issue receipts for many of the payments. He stopped because he thought the tenant did not require them. He was wrong to do that. Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure that the HHS certifications in the tenancy agreement were completed?
The tenancy agreements do not comply with the section 13A RTA requirements by failing to include information about compliance with the HHS.
I find that the criteria for exemplary damages are met. The landlord relied on a form of tenancy agreement provided by his daughter. The agreement is deficient in several respects. A failure by a landlord to ensure they are aware of their statutory responsibilities can be considered an intentional act.
The landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the tenancy agreement contained the necessary information about HHS compliance. His failure to do so was against the tenants’ interests. It was against the public interest. And it had an effect on the tenants; it caused them concern.
I award the tenants exemplary damages of $200.00 for this unlawful act – the maximum award is $750.00.
I do not award exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to comply with the HHS. The landlord had the premises assessed after the tenancy ended. They were HHS compliant; no work was required to achieve compliance. So, the premises were compliant during the tenancy as well.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

There is no substance to this claim. The tenants said that the landlord never did inspections, so he could not therefore know whether there were any maintenance issues.
I asked the tenants whether there were any claims arising from a failure by the landlord to maintain the premises. They said there were not. I dismiss this part of the application. There is nothing for the Tribunal to address.

Did the landlord unlawfully increase the rent?

The tenants allege that there was one tenancy agreement that they did not receive a copy of, and therefore the rent was increased unlawfully.
The sequence of tenancy agreements was confusing due to date errors. However, the rent increases were recorded in the tenancy agreements, each of which stands alone.
Only one tenancy agreement is at issue. The tenants say that agreement was for a 6-month term as were the other agreements; the landlord says it was for a 12-month term.
The evidence does not show that the landlord unlawfully increased the rent. The rent was agreed to each time an agreement was signed. This is not a case where the Tribunal need intervene. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the tenancy? If so, should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?
The tenants allege that the landlord interfered with their quiet enjoyment on several occasions by simply turning up without notice, doing the lawns without notice, and on one occasion entering the premises when one tenant was asleep after working a night shift. They described other occasions which they considered were breaches as well.
The landlord denied the allegations. He accepted though that he entered the premises on the occasion described while the tenant was sleeping because he wanted to check that he was alright.
The premises are close together; the landlord’s house is about 10 metres from the tenancy premises which are located in a separated area of a large garage/shed.
I gained the impression that the landlord considered he could do as he pleased. He said there was never a single complaint made to him and that he and the tenants got on well together.
I find that there were instances when the landlord breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. This was probably not done intentionally, but intention does not have to be proved for an award of compensation.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The tenants’ compensation claim is for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to breaches of their quiet enjoyment.
Tenancies such as this one, where the parties live in very close proximity, can be, and often are, problematic. It is easy for a landlord to be annoying, even if the landlord does not consider themselves to be at fault.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The breaches here were infrequent; they were not complained about during the tenancy when the relationship was good (at least not formally), and they were for brief moments.
I award the tenants compensation of $200.00 for the landlord’s breaches of their quiet enjoyment. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenants in full. The landlord will pay the tenants $369.48.
I make no order for the reimbursement of the filing fees each party paid. Each party has succeeded, the landlord in full, the tenants in part. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Each party sought a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as his application is wholly successful. I have suppressed the tenants’ names as well as their application is partly successful. There is no public interest in this decision being published – see section 95A RTA.

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 4584329 — net $369.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Electricity costs	$66.48		Electricity costs
Rug doctor hire	$64.04		Rug doctor hire
Compensation – breaches of quiet enjoyment		$200.00	Compensation – breaches of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages – failure to give receipts for rent		$100.00	Exemplary damages – failure to give receipts for rent
Exemplary damages – failure to provide HHS information		$200.00	Exemplary damages – failure to provide HHS information
Total award	$130.52	$500.00
Net award		$369.48
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$369.48

Claims and awards for application 4584329 — net $369.48 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Electricity costs

Amount: $66.48
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electricity costs

Rug doctor hire

Amount: $64.04
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rug doctor hire

Compensation – breaches of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation – breaches of quiet enjoyment

Exemplary damages – failure to give receipts for rent

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages – failure to give receipts for rent

Exemplary damages – failure to provide HHS information

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Exemplary damages – failure to provide HHS information

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages

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] $369.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s]

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I heard oral evidence from them both. Each provided documentary evidence. Each made submissions.
The tenants have applied for compensation for alleged breaches of their quiet enjoyment and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts.
The landlord has cross applied. He seeks costs totalling $130.52 for alleged breaches by the tenants.
The landlord’s cross application has not yet been processed by Tenancy Services. The parties agreed that the Tribunal should determine the landlord’s claims as well. Background
The tenancy started on 8 December 2020. Before then, one of the tenants rented the premises from another landlord. The tenancy was renewed more than once. It ended by agreement on 21 May 2023.
The parties enjoyed a good relationship during the tenancy, but when the landlord did a bond inspection, he commented (according to the tenants) that the place was ‘disgusting’. That comment, and the landlord’s intention to seek costs from the bond, resulted in the tenants making their application. Then followed, quite recently, the landlord’s cross application.
The tenants’ application was set for hearing today. By consent, the Tribunal will also decide the landlord’s (as yet unprocessed) application. Issues
The issue to be determined are these: •Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond within time? •Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to always provide receipts for cash payment of rent? •Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure that the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) certifications in the tenancy agreement were completed? •Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? •Did the landlord unlawfully increase the rent? •Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the tenancy?

If so, should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond within time?

The landlord accepts that he did not lodge the bond within the required 23- working days after receiving it. The bond was not lodged until 23 June 2023, after the tenancy had ended.
The landlord said he overlooked lodging the bond because he had broken his wrist, was in a plaster cast and was moving from a farm while disabled from his injury.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Those factors are: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
In this case I do not find the criteria for exemplary damages met in so far as the delayed bond lodgement is concerned. I accept the landlord’s evidence that, due to circumstances, he overlooked lodging the bond.
Had he not lodged the bond at all, I would have awarded exemplary damages. But once alerted to his failure, he acted and lodged the bond. Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to always provide receipts for cash payment of rent?
I am persuaded to award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide written receipts for the cash payments of rent as required by section 29 RTA.
I award the tenant $100.00 – the maximum award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act is $350.00.
I have limited the amount to a token amount because the landlord did issue receipts for many of the payments. He stopped because he thought the tenant did not require them. He was wrong to do that. Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to ensure that the HHS certifications in the tenancy agreement were completed?
The tenancy agreements do not comply with the section 13A RTA requirements by failing to include information about compliance with the HHS.
I find that the criteria for exemplary damages are met. The landlord relied on a form of tenancy agreement provided by his daughter. The agreement is deficient in several respects. A failure by a landlord to ensure they are aware of their statutory responsibilities can be considered an intentional act.
The landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the tenancy agreement contained the necessary information about HHS compliance. His failure to do so was against the tenants’ interests. It was against the public interest. And it had an effect on the tenants; it caused them concern.
I award the tenants exemplary damages of $200.00 for this unlawful act – the maximum award is $750.00.
I do not award exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to comply with the HHS. The landlord had the premises assessed after the tenancy ended. They were HHS compliant; no work was required to achieve compliance. So, the premises were compliant during the tenancy as well.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

There is no substance to this claim. The tenants said that the landlord never did inspections, so he could not therefore know whether there were any maintenance issues.
I asked the tenants whether there were any claims arising from a failure by the landlord to maintain the premises. They said there were not. I dismiss this part of the application. There is nothing for the Tribunal to address.

Did the landlord unlawfully increase the rent?

The tenants allege that there was one tenancy agreement that they did not receive a copy of, and therefore the rent was increased unlawfully.
The sequence of tenancy agreements was confusing due to date errors. However, the rent increases were recorded in the tenancy agreements, each of which stands alone.
Only one tenancy agreement is at issue. The tenants say that agreement was for a 6-month term as were the other agreements; the landlord says it was for a 12-month term.
The evidence does not show that the landlord unlawfully increased the rent. The rent was agreed to each time an agreement was signed. This is not a case where the Tribunal need intervene. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the tenancy? If so, should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?
The tenants allege that the landlord interfered with their quiet enjoyment on several occasions by simply turning up without notice, doing the lawns without notice, and on one occasion entering the premises when one tenant was asleep after working a night shift. They described other occasions which they considered were breaches as well.
The landlord denied the allegations. He accepted though that he entered the premises on the occasion described while the tenant was sleeping because he wanted to check that he was alright.
The premises are close together; the landlord’s house is about 10 metres from the tenancy premises which are located in a separated area of a large garage/shed.
I gained the impression that the landlord considered he could do as he pleased. He said there was never a single complaint made to him and that he and the tenants got on well together.
I find that there were instances when the landlord breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment. This was probably not done intentionally, but intention does not have to be proved for an award of compensation.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The tenants’ compensation claim is for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to breaches of their quiet enjoyment.
Tenancies such as this one, where the parties live in very close proximity, can be, and often are, problematic. It is easy for a landlord to be annoying, even if the landlord does not consider themselves to be at fault.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The breaches here were infrequent; they were not complained about during the tenancy when the relationship was good (at least not formally), and they were for brief moments.
I award the tenants compensation of $200.00 for the landlord’s breaches of their quiet enjoyment. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenants in full. The landlord will pay the tenants $369.48.
I make no order for the reimbursement of the filing fees each party paid. Each party has succeeded, the landlord in full, the tenants in part. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Each party sought a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as his application is wholly successful. I have suppressed the tenants’ names as well as their application is partly successful. There is no public interest in this decision being published – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4584329 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4584329 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

If so, should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord unlawfully increase the rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

If so, should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord unlawfully increase the rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions