What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4656549 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,050.00 (6461285-001) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4656549?

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 4656549?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9597839-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4656549 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,050.00 (6461285-001) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4656549?

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 4656549?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9597839-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 1, 75F Hill Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4656549 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656549 — net $1,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of Healthy Homes Heating Standard	$500.00	Breach of Healthy Homes Heating Standard
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,020.44
Bond	$1,050.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,020.44

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,050.00 (6461285-001) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The claims in respect of the extractor fan and stolen goods are dismissed.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,020.44 immediately calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The applicant tenant attended the teleconference hearing on 2 November 2023. The landlord was called on the number provided three times and each time the call went to answerphone or was cut off. The file records that notice of the hearing was sent to both parties. The hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
This tenancy commenced on 5 April 2022. The tenant rented a room at a premises owned by the landlord for one year which ended on 8 April 2023.
The tenant advised that there are other financial disputes between the parties which are outside of the Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
[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 tenant gave evidence that the bond was paid on 21 April 2022. A copy of a bond lodgement form signed by the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy in April 2022 was produced. The tenant advised that he asked the landlord several times to lodge the bond and eventually it was lodged in September 2022. The tenant provided a copy of a letter from MBIE dated 13 September 2022 confirming receipt of the bond on 6 September 2022. I find the landlord has 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.
That the landlord’s breach was intentional can be more than reasonably inferred from her delay in lodging until September despite reminders from the tenant.
The landlord’s obligation was to lodge the bond, irrespective of whatever explanation she may have for it not being lodged.
Further, the failure has caused stress and inconvenience for the tenant, who has been obliged to follow up to ensure the bond was lodged.
It is in the public interest that landlords understand lodgement of a bond at the Bond Centre is a serious responsibility. Some landlords who do not lodge bonds use the money to pay their debts and the money is not available at the end of the tenancy. Others insist on keeping some bond money at the end or none will be refunded. There are very good reasons that the bond should be held by a neutral body during the tenancy.
Having considered the factors referred to above including the effect on the tenant but also that the bond was lodged prior to the hearing exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale in the sum of $500.00 is ordered. Healthy Homes
[The tenant/s] claims 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). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
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 tenant advised the landlord did not provide any heater in the living room and provided a photograph of the room. In this case I have determined that the landlord failed to provide qualifying heating.
I find [The landlord/s] 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
This tenancy commenced in April 2022 and the requirement for compliance with Healthy Homes Standards for heating commenced in July 2021. The 120 days from the commencement of the tenancy expired on 3 August 2022 and no heating was provided by the time the tenancy ended in April 2023. Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord’s failure to install heating was intentional and this can be more than reasonably inferred as by the time the tenancy ended the delay was more than 7 months after the 120 day time limit.
The tenant stated that the effect on him was that he had to provide his own heating at the premises. The Healthy Homes Standards were introduced to ensure that landlords provide warm dry housing for tenants. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with these obligations. The Tribunal has taken in to account that this was a rental of a room at the premises and that this is the first breach of this nature and orders exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale in the sum of $500.00.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to repair the kitchen extractor fan but provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim. Stolen items
The tenant claimed that goods belonging to him were taken by other residents at the premises. As this is a dispute between tenants the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this matter. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656549 — net $1,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of Healthy Homes Heating Standard	$500.00	Breach of Healthy Homes Heating Standard
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,020.44
Bond	$1,050.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,020.44

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,050.00 (6461285-001) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The claims in respect of the extractor fan and stolen goods are dismissed.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,020.44 immediately calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The applicant tenant attended the teleconference hearing on 2 November 2023. The landlord was called on the number provided three times and each time the call went to answerphone or was cut off. The file records that notice of the hearing was sent to both parties. The hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
This tenancy commenced on 5 April 2022. The tenant rented a room at a premises owned by the landlord for one year which ended on 8 April 2023.
The tenant advised that there are other financial disputes between the parties which are outside of the Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
[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 tenant gave evidence that the bond was paid on 21 April 2022. A copy of a bond lodgement form signed by the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy in April 2022 was produced. The tenant advised that he asked the landlord several times to lodge the bond and eventually it was lodged in September 2022. The tenant provided a copy of a letter from MBIE dated 13 September 2022 confirming receipt of the bond on 6 September 2022. I find the landlord has 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.
That the landlord’s breach was intentional can be more than reasonably inferred from her delay in lodging until September despite reminders from the tenant.
The landlord’s obligation was to lodge the bond, irrespective of whatever explanation she may have for it not being lodged.
Further, the failure has caused stress and inconvenience for the tenant, who has been obliged to follow up to ensure the bond was lodged.
It is in the public interest that landlords understand lodgement of a bond at the Bond Centre is a serious responsibility. Some landlords who do not lodge bonds use the money to pay their debts and the money is not available at the end of the tenancy. Others insist on keeping some bond money at the end or none will be refunded. There are very good reasons that the bond should be held by a neutral body during the tenancy.
Having considered the factors referred to above including the effect on the tenant but also that the bond was lodged prior to the hearing exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale in the sum of $500.00 is ordered. Healthy Homes
[The tenant/s] claims 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). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
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 tenant advised the landlord did not provide any heater in the living room and provided a photograph of the room. In this case I have determined that the landlord failed to provide qualifying heating.
I find [The landlord/s] 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
This tenancy commenced in April 2022 and the requirement for compliance with Healthy Homes Standards for heating commenced in July 2021. The 120 days from the commencement of the tenancy expired on 3 August 2022 and no heating was provided by the time the tenancy ended in April 2023. Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord’s failure to install heating was intentional and this can be more than reasonably inferred as by the time the tenancy ended the delay was more than 7 months after the 120 day time limit.
The tenant stated that the effect on him was that he had to provide his own heating at the premises. The Healthy Homes Standards were introduced to ensure that landlords provide warm dry housing for tenants. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with these obligations. The Tribunal has taken in to account that this was a rental of a room at the premises and that this is the first breach of this nature and orders exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale in the sum of $500.00.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to repair the kitchen extractor fan but provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim. Stolen items
The tenant claimed that goods belonging to him were taken by other residents at the premises. As this is a dispute between tenants the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this matter. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656549 — Healthy homes at Room 1, 75F Hill Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656549 — Healthy homes at Room 1, 75F Hill Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

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