What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680294 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 4680294?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (mice and coach roach…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $88.93 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $459.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,474.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680294?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9720285-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680294 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 4680294?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (mice and coach roach…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $88.93 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $459.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,474.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680294?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9720285-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4680294 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680294 — net $3,076.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (April to July 2023	$1,474.03		Water rates (April to July 2023
Lock/key replacement	$300.00		Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$459.00		Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: (paint and plaster to repair walls		$88.93	(paint and plaster to repair walls
Compensation: (mice and coach roach infestation		$1,000.00	(mice and coach roach infestation
Compensation: (failure to repair garage door and holes in		$1,200.00	(failure to repair garage door and holes in
Compensation: (failure to repair back deck		$400.00	(failure to repair back deck
Compensation: (ineffective repair oven top		$100.00	(ineffective repair oven top
Exemplary damages: (failure to lodge bond		$1,000.00	(failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: (loss of amenities and enjoyment		$1,500.00	(loss of amenities and enjoyment
Total award	$2,233.03	$5,309.37
Net award		$3,076.34
Bond		$2,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,076.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenant immediately.
Pro Edge Property Management Limited must pay the tenant $3,076.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant must get the rubbish skip bin removed from the premises by Friday 8 December 2023.
If the tenant fails to comply with Order 4 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of getting the rubbish skip bin removed up to $750. These costs may be set off against the total award payable to the tenant.
The landlord must, by Thursday 7 December 2023, get any rubbish put into or around the skip bin by the work persons who conducted the renovations removed prior to the bin being picked up by the skip provider so as not to incur any further costs to the tenants for the removal of such additional rubbish.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 6 above, then the tenant may get the additional rubbish removed (including having to arrange for an additional bin and labour to fill that additional bin) and charge the landlord the costs of getting the renovation rubbish loaded into a new bin and removed up to $750. These costs may be added to the total award payable by the landlord to the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages full refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee, following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord made a counter claim for reimbursement of the water rates from April to July 2023, compensation for having three locks replaced due to keys being lost by the tenant and damages for a cracked window that needed to be replaced.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 August 2023. The landlord provided water rates records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The water rates for the period April to July 2023 was $1,474.03.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. She left a rubbish skip bin full of rubbish that was not paid for, so was not collected, and remained at the premises causing health issues for the current tenants.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy was a cracked window. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has admitted liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Did the landlord fail to main the premises in breach of sections 45(1)(a) and (b) of the RTA?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant also sought general damages for the inconvenience of all of the issues set out in paragraph 22 (a) to (d) below.
The landlord failed to fully investigate and repair to a reasonable standard within a reasonable time frame: a. A significant rat and cockroach infestation that resulted in numerous holes chewed through walls and rat faeces as well as numerous cockroaches infesting the tenant’s belongings and impinging on their enjoyment of the property and full use of the amenities. The landlord maintains some rat bait was provided to the tenant but had no evidence of this and the tenant denied having received any rodent traps or bait and had lived with the rat and cockroach infestation for the full 20 months she resided in the premises; b. The repair of the broken garage door for the majority of the 20-month tenancy and failure to address an ineffective repair of the door undertaken 12 months into the tenancy that resulted in it no longer being able to be closed at all for the remainder of the tenancy. The garage flooded and the tenant’s belongings were ruined as a result of the garage door being in a continual state of disrepair; c. The repair and maintenance of the back deck that contained rotten boards that made the deck unstable and hazardous to walk on. One of the tenant’s daughter’s fell through a wooden board that had rotted; d. The ineffective repair of the stove top in a reasonable timeframe, after being notified the top was not secured to the bench and moved during use; and e. The repair of the significant holes in the walls and cupboards, leaving the tenant to have to effect repair and maintenance of these herself at her own cost and in her own time.
I find the landlord has committed a series of unlawful acts.
Where a party has committed such unlawful acts 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.
In accordance with s 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The landlord was aware of the issues outlined in paragraph 22 (a) to (d) and knowingly failed to repair and maintain the property to a reasonable standard in a reasonable timeframe and therefore intentionally committed the unlawful acts; and b. The landlord’s breach of the RTA has affected the tenant and her family in that they have had to live in a rodent and cockroach infested home with rats and cockroaches running around the premises every night and making the premises unclean and unhygienic failure to live in. The failure to repair the garage led to the tenants being unable to use the garage and to loss of their property due to flooding and not being able to securely leave things in the garage. In addition, they were unable to make full use of the deck for fear they may fall through the rotten boards and break a leg or ankle and they felt unsafe using a stove top that was not secured to the bench; c. It is in the interests of the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed to be compensated for the loss of the amenities of the house, garage, deck and stove top; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that commits such significant unlawful acts in breach of the landlord’s obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and the RTA. Failure to lodge the bond.
The tenant 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 did not lodge the bond with the bond centre until September 2023 when the tenancy commenced on 20 December 2023. 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.
In accordance with s 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The landlord was aware the bond was not lodged initially due to the property manager having contracted COVID-19 but then failed to do so in a reasonable timeframe thereafter and therefore intentionally committed the unlawful act; and b. The landlord’s failure to lodge the bond has cost the tenant time and money trying to find out how to get her bond back at the end of her tenancy when the landlord had not lodged it or given her a receipt for it; c. It is in the interests of the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed to be compensated for the failure to lodge the bond for the duration of her 20-month tenancy and for a month after her tenancy ended; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that commits such an unlawful act in breach of the landlord’s obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and the RTA. Filing fee
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680294 — net $3,076.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (April to July 2023	$1,474.03		Water rates (April to July 2023
Lock/key replacement	$300.00		Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$459.00		Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: (paint and plaster to repair walls		$88.93	(paint and plaster to repair walls
Compensation: (mice and coach roach infestation		$1,000.00	(mice and coach roach infestation
Compensation: (failure to repair garage door and holes in		$1,200.00	(failure to repair garage door and holes in
Compensation: (failure to repair back deck		$400.00	(failure to repair back deck
Compensation: (ineffective repair oven top		$100.00	(ineffective repair oven top
Exemplary damages: (failure to lodge bond		$1,000.00	(failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: (loss of amenities and enjoyment		$1,500.00	(loss of amenities and enjoyment
Total award	$2,233.03	$5,309.37
Net award		$3,076.34
Bond		$2,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,076.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenant immediately.
Pro Edge Property Management Limited must pay the tenant $3,076.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant must get the rubbish skip bin removed from the premises by Friday 8 December 2023.
If the tenant fails to comply with Order 4 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of getting the rubbish skip bin removed up to $750. These costs may be set off against the total award payable to the tenant.
The landlord must, by Thursday 7 December 2023, get any rubbish put into or around the skip bin by the work persons who conducted the renovations removed prior to the bin being picked up by the skip provider so as not to incur any further costs to the tenants for the removal of such additional rubbish.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 6 above, then the tenant may get the additional rubbish removed (including having to arrange for an additional bin and labour to fill that additional bin) and charge the landlord the costs of getting the renovation rubbish loaded into a new bin and removed up to $750. These costs may be added to the total award payable by the landlord to the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages full refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee, following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord made a counter claim for reimbursement of the water rates from April to July 2023, compensation for having three locks replaced due to keys being lost by the tenant and damages for a cracked window that needed to be replaced.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 August 2023. The landlord provided water rates records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The water rates for the period April to July 2023 was $1,474.03.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. She left a rubbish skip bin full of rubbish that was not paid for, so was not collected, and remained at the premises causing health issues for the current tenants.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy was a cracked window. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has admitted liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Did the landlord fail to main the premises in breach of sections 45(1)(a) and (b) of the RTA?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant also sought general damages for the inconvenience of all of the issues set out in paragraph 22 (a) to (d) below.
The landlord failed to fully investigate and repair to a reasonable standard within a reasonable time frame: a. A significant rat and cockroach infestation that resulted in numerous holes chewed through walls and rat faeces as well as numerous cockroaches infesting the tenant’s belongings and impinging on their enjoyment of the property and full use of the amenities. The landlord maintains some rat bait was provided to the tenant but had no evidence of this and the tenant denied having received any rodent traps or bait and had lived with the rat and cockroach infestation for the full 20 months she resided in the premises; b. The repair of the broken garage door for the majority of the 20-month tenancy and failure to address an ineffective repair of the door undertaken 12 months into the tenancy that resulted in it no longer being able to be closed at all for the remainder of the tenancy. The garage flooded and the tenant’s belongings were ruined as a result of the garage door being in a continual state of disrepair; c. The repair and maintenance of the back deck that contained rotten boards that made the deck unstable and hazardous to walk on. One of the tenant’s daughter’s fell through a wooden board that had rotted; d. The ineffective repair of the stove top in a reasonable timeframe, after being notified the top was not secured to the bench and moved during use; and e. The repair of the significant holes in the walls and cupboards, leaving the tenant to have to effect repair and maintenance of these herself at her own cost and in her own time.
I find the landlord has committed a series of unlawful acts.
Where a party has committed such unlawful acts 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.
In accordance with s 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The landlord was aware of the issues outlined in paragraph 22 (a) to (d) and knowingly failed to repair and maintain the property to a reasonable standard in a reasonable timeframe and therefore intentionally committed the unlawful acts; and b. The landlord’s breach of the RTA has affected the tenant and her family in that they have had to live in a rodent and cockroach infested home with rats and cockroaches running around the premises every night and making the premises unclean and unhygienic failure to live in. The failure to repair the garage led to the tenants being unable to use the garage and to loss of their property due to flooding and not being able to securely leave things in the garage. In addition, they were unable to make full use of the deck for fear they may fall through the rotten boards and break a leg or ankle and they felt unsafe using a stove top that was not secured to the bench; c. It is in the interests of the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed to be compensated for the loss of the amenities of the house, garage, deck and stove top; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that commits such significant unlawful acts in breach of the landlord’s obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and the RTA. Failure to lodge the bond.
The tenant 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 did not lodge the bond with the bond centre until September 2023 when the tenancy commenced on 20 December 2023. 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.
In accordance with s 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The landlord was aware the bond was not lodged initially due to the property manager having contracted COVID-19 but then failed to do so in a reasonable timeframe thereafter and therefore intentionally committed the unlawful act; and b. The landlord’s failure to lodge the bond has cost the tenant time and money trying to find out how to get her bond back at the end of her tenancy when the landlord had not lodged it or given her a receipt for it; c. It is in the interests of the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed to be compensated for the failure to lodge the bond for the duration of her 20-month tenancy and for a month after her tenancy ended; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that commits such an unlawful act in breach of the landlord’s obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and the RTA. Filing fee
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680294 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680294 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions