What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655154 about?

The tribunal order states: Michael Williamson and Tanya Williamson must pay [The tenant/s] $6,020.44

How much money was awarded in case 4655154?

Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655154?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9987629-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655154 about?

The tribunal order states: Michael Williamson and Tanya Williamson must pay [The tenant/s] $6,020.44

How much money was awarded in case 4655154?

Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655154?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9987629-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 15, 783 Great King Street, North Dunedin, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655154 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655154 — net $6,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$6,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,020.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655154 — net $6,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$6,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,020.44

Order

Michael Williamson and Tanya Williamson must pay [The tenant/s] $6,020.44 immediately.

Reasons

Five of the tenants and the two landlords attended the rescheduled hearing.
The tenants originally applied for compensation and or exemplary damages on 13/8/2023.
At a case conference on 4/10/2023 the tenants’ clarified the alleged breaches as: a. There was no signed tenancy agreement; b. The bond was not lodged on time; c. They were not provided with a Healthy Homes statement; d. The house did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards and/or was not provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair pursuant to Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; e. They were not afforded quiet enjoyment of the property and/or were harassed by the landlord; and f. No insurance policy was provided on request.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2023 to 31/12/2023 at a rental of $960.00 per week. a. Was there a signed tenancy agreement?
The tenants suggested that they did not sign a tenancy agreement and had not been provided with a copy of an agreement.
On the other hand, the landlord provided an agreement with the tenants’ details filled out by them individually, but only signed by the landlord.
The landlord explained that they had provided each tenant with an individual agreement which they had each signed.
Section 13 provides for a written and signed tenancy agreement, and for a copy to be provided to a tenant.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am not persuaded that there was no written and signed tenancy agreement, albeit that the parties signed different copies of the agreement.
The tenants did not dispute that they had filled out their details on the copy signed by the landlord.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act. b. Did the landlord lodge the bond late?
The tenants submitted that they paid the bond of $2,400.00 to the landlord in July 2022.
Subsequently when they discovered that the bond had not been lodged, they advised the landlord and issued a 14 day notice dated 26/7/2023 about the lodgement and other issues.
The landlord lodged the bond on 3/8/2023.
The reason the landlord gave for the failure to lodge the bond within the required timeframe was that they “forgot”.
The landlord confirmed that the bond sat in their bank account for a year.
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.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond within the required timeframe. c. Did the landlord provide a Healthy Homes Statement?
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to provide a Healthy Homes Statement.
The tenants submitted that in the section 56 notice of 26 July they requested a copy of the Healthy Homes Statement.
Subsequently on 17/9/2023 the landlord provided a copy of the Healthy Homes Standards compliance report dated 1/9/2023.
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 Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act and an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee. See section 45(I)(1AC and 1AD) and Schedule 1B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and an infringement offence. d. Did the landlord fail to comply with Healthy Homes Standards and state of repair?
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has 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) in relation to the ventilation standard.
In addition, the tenants claimed the premises were not maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
Following issues with mould in the two bathrooms the tenants submitted they asked the landlord in May 2023 to install extractor fans.
As a result of the landlords’ attitude after several conversations the tenants issued the section 56 notice, which included the lack of extractor fans.
However, the tenants provided no further evidence about why they believed the premises were not maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
In response, the landlord suggested due to the nature of the three storey building they had found it difficult to install a fan in the bathroom on the third floor. When they did find a solution, the fans were installed in August.
The landlord submitted that the premises were well maintained.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The Healthy Homes standards compliance dates were extended on 26/11/2022 so that all private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
However, because this was a new tenancy which began on 1/1/2023 the obligation was then that the tenancy must comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy, which would have been 30 April 2023.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and not complied with the ventilation standards because extractor fans were not fitted in the two bathrooms until early August 2023. e. Did the landlord harass the tenants or enter the premises without notice or consent?
The tenants submitted that the landlord entered the premises without notice or consent on 27/7/2023.
In addition, the tenants suggested that because of the way the landlord administered the premises they were not afforded quiet enjoyment of the premises and felt harassed.
The landlord acknowledged that he had let himself into the premises after leaving a voice mail about a bond form but had not actually given any notice.
Further the landlord suggested they were very unhappy and had reacted negatively to the suggestion from the tenants that the premises had caused them to be “sick”.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 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 s 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by entering the premises without notice or consent.
Whether the landlord intentionally harassed the tenants is less clear.
Rather the evidence supports that the landlord was unaware of the effect of their behaviour and the way they administered the tenancy had on the tenants.
While I consider the landlord breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises, I am not persuaded it was in circumstances that amounted to harassment. f. Did the landlord provide insurance details when requested?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises.
The tenants submitted that in the section 56 notice they asked the landlord for a copy of their insurance policy.
The landlord did not dispute that the policy had not been provided but had not done so because the insurance was in the name of a Body Corporate and included private information. Subsequently the landlord discovered that Tenancy Services provided forms for use in such circumstances.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide insurance details when requested.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
That decision, which was a case about the failure to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and Insurance details, also confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliaments intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
I consider in the circumstances that an inference can be drawn that the landlord intentionally failed to comply with many obligations under the legislation.
The evidence supports that the landlord knew extractor fans were required in the bathrooms, but because of the difficulties involved in the construction of the premises, took longer than they should have to rectify the matter.
Further the landlord used what he described as a Property Investors Association tenancy agreement which included notes on how to complete the agreement, many of which the landlord ignored. These included lodgement of the bond, insulation details, healthy homes standards and insurance details needing to be included in the tenancy agreement.
In addition, the landlord has another flat which they rent out and should have had procedures in place to ensure the bond was lodged.
Further, the landlord was aware notice needed to be given before entering premises but omitted to do so when dropping a bond form off and relied on a contractor to give notice when work needed doing.
I have carefully considered all the evidence provided and submissions made by the parties.
The effect on the tenants has been significant, in their words the landlord “made us all feel unsafe and vulnerable in our own home”.
The fact that the tenants had to ask the landlord for documentation which the landlord was legally obliged to supply is unacceptable.
The legislation provides for bond money to be used for dispute resolution procedures under the Act. Non-lodgement of bonds is a loss and against the public interest.
Moreover, lodgement of bonds has been a feature of the legislation since its introduction in 1986.
The public and tenants in particular should be able to rely on landlords to comply with the legislation and when they do not the public should expect some censure.
The only mitigating factor in favour of the landlord was that the bond was lodged as soon as the failure was brought to their attention and refunded soon after the tenancy ended.
Having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the tenants and the public interest I consider it just to award exemplary damages at the higher end of the scale. I have set these at $6,000.00.
The renting of premises is a business. Landlords have obligations under the legislation and need to comply with these.
Tenants have rights under the legislation which landlords should not ignore.
No compensation is awarded as the tenants have not suffered any monetary loss and they have effectively been compensated by the award of exemplary damages.
As [The applicant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression has been granted to the tenants pursuant to section 95A(1) because they have substantially succeeded with the claim.
No suppression is available to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655154 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 15, 783 Great King Street, North Dunedin,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655154 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 15, 783 Great King Street, North Dunedin,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions