What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713264 about?

The tribunal order states: Mengya Jia must pay [The tenant/s] $2,850.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4713264?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment (One Week: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713264?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10314452-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713264 about?

The tribunal order states: Mengya Jia must pay [The tenant/s] $2,850.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4713264?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment (One Week: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713264?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10314452-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2C, 2 White Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713264 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713264 — net $2,850.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment (one week	$350.00	Rent overpayment (one week
Compensation for cleaning at the start of the tenancy	$200.00	Compensation for cleaning at the start of the tenancy
Compensation for failure to maintain (extractor fan	$480.00	Compensation for failure to maintain (extractor fan
Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond	$750.00	Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond
Refund of bond	$1,050.00	Refund of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,850.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,850.44

Order

Mengya Jia must pay [The tenant/s] $2,850.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Mr Dai. The landlord was represented by Zhe Qu. The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter, Ms Qiu.
The tenant presented the following claims: a. Refund of the bond ($1,050) and for one week of overpaid rent ($350); b. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond; c. Compensation for cleaning at the start of the tenancy ($200); d. Compensation for failure to maintain (on the basis of loss of amenity); and e. Compensation for replacing a bed ($800). Onus and evidence
The onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.
The Tribunal will review all of the evidence presented on each issue to determine whether the onus has been met. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence presented but the parties should be assured that I have carefully reviewed all of the evidence in reaching this decision. Overpayment of rent
The tenant produced a rent summary showing that the rent had been overpaid by $350 (being one week’s rent). The landlord agreed and so this amount is ordered by consent. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord says that they have a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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 of $1,050 is refunded in full to the tenant.
The tenant also claims that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre.
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.
Ms Qu confirmed that the landlord had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. I find that 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) RTA.
Landlords are required to know the law. The requirement to lodge the bond is so fundamental that I find that the landlord has acted intentionally by not doing so.
The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord makes a successful claim (or the parties otherwise agree). It is therefore important that the bond money is protected by a neutral third party and can then be paid out automatically following the issuing of a Tribunal Order. In this case the tenant still has not received her bond despite the tenancy ending over six months ago, and the landlord not having filed a claim.
I order exemplary damages payable at half the maximum amount, being $750.00. Compensation for cleaning and failure to maintain
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must: (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant says that when she moved in the property wasn’t clean. She provided photos of the fridge which was very mouldy inside, the washing machine/dryer which shows a lot of dust in the vents, and the outside balcony which looks to be very dirty. She said that she spent three days cleaning and seeks compensation of $200.00 for her time spent cleaning.
The landlord said that the property had been cleaned when the previous tenant moved out, but that the property had been empty for several months. She said that the tenant had wanted to move in anyway and had said that she would clean herself, and that the tenant had moved in early and wasn’t charged rent for those first three or four days.
I find that the tenant has proved that the property wasn’t provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. This is an obligation on the landlord, not the tenant. The tenancy agreement states that the tenancy is to start on 7 October 2022 and rent was paid from that date.
I consider that the compensation claimed by the tenant is reasonable and so order payment of $200.00.
The tenant says that the extractor fan in the bathroom broke fairly early on, on 15 March 2023, and that it was never fixed or replaced. She said that as a result the shower kept getting mouldy. She also said that the door to the outside was difficult to lock which raised a security issue as the deck is low enough to be accessed by passers-by and that she raised this as an issue with the landlord.
The landlord said that they told the tenant to contact the building manager about the extractor fan and that it wasn’t their issue to deal with. They said that they had someone come around to fix the door.
The tenant responded to say that she did contact the building manager who said that the extractor fan had to be replaced. She provided WeChat messages showing that she had communicated this to the landlord. She said that the person who came to fix the door didn’t do a good job but could not present any evidence showing that she had communicated this to the landlord.
I do not find the claim in respect of the door proved. However I do find that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to fix the extractor fan in the bathroom. This is an obligation of the landlord and is now also a requirement of the Healthy Homes Standards. These standards recognise the importance of reducing moisture, and with it, mould. This was a small apartment and so the lack of extractor fan in the bathroom would have had a fairly large impact on the overall space.
I consider that the tenant should be compensated by a rent reduction of $15.00 per week for the period that the extractor fan was broken (from 15 March 2023 so 32 weeks), a total of $480.00. Bed
The tenant said that the bed provided broke during the tenancy and that she had to purchase a new bed. She claimed $800 for the new bed (being $500 for the bed, $200 for delivery and $100 for moving), which she left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said that the bed was in good condition at the start of the tenancy and said that the tenant must have damaged the bed.
I do not find this claim proven as the tenant did not provide any evidence (in the form or receipts or even screenshots of a trademe purchase) for the amount of compensation sought. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44.
The tenant has sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the substantially successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713264 — net $2,850.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment (one week	$350.00	Rent overpayment (one week
Compensation for cleaning at the start of the tenancy	$200.00	Compensation for cleaning at the start of the tenancy
Compensation for failure to maintain (extractor fan	$480.00	Compensation for failure to maintain (extractor fan
Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond	$750.00	Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond
Refund of bond	$1,050.00	Refund of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,850.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,850.44

Order

Mengya Jia must pay [The tenant/s] $2,850.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Mr Dai. The landlord was represented by Zhe Qu. The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter, Ms Qiu.
The tenant presented the following claims: a. Refund of the bond ($1,050) and for one week of overpaid rent ($350); b. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond; c. Compensation for cleaning at the start of the tenancy ($200); d. Compensation for failure to maintain (on the basis of loss of amenity); and e. Compensation for replacing a bed ($800). Onus and evidence
The onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.
The Tribunal will review all of the evidence presented on each issue to determine whether the onus has been met. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence presented but the parties should be assured that I have carefully reviewed all of the evidence in reaching this decision. Overpayment of rent
The tenant produced a rent summary showing that the rent had been overpaid by $350 (being one week’s rent). The landlord agreed and so this amount is ordered by consent. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord says that they have a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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 of $1,050 is refunded in full to the tenant.
The tenant also claims that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre.
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.
Ms Qu confirmed that the landlord had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. I find that 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) RTA.
Landlords are required to know the law. The requirement to lodge the bond is so fundamental that I find that the landlord has acted intentionally by not doing so.
The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord makes a successful claim (or the parties otherwise agree). It is therefore important that the bond money is protected by a neutral third party and can then be paid out automatically following the issuing of a Tribunal Order. In this case the tenant still has not received her bond despite the tenancy ending over six months ago, and the landlord not having filed a claim.
I order exemplary damages payable at half the maximum amount, being $750.00. Compensation for cleaning and failure to maintain
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must: (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant says that when she moved in the property wasn’t clean. She provided photos of the fridge which was very mouldy inside, the washing machine/dryer which shows a lot of dust in the vents, and the outside balcony which looks to be very dirty. She said that she spent three days cleaning and seeks compensation of $200.00 for her time spent cleaning.
The landlord said that the property had been cleaned when the previous tenant moved out, but that the property had been empty for several months. She said that the tenant had wanted to move in anyway and had said that she would clean herself, and that the tenant had moved in early and wasn’t charged rent for those first three or four days.
I find that the tenant has proved that the property wasn’t provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. This is an obligation on the landlord, not the tenant. The tenancy agreement states that the tenancy is to start on 7 October 2022 and rent was paid from that date.
I consider that the compensation claimed by the tenant is reasonable and so order payment of $200.00.
The tenant says that the extractor fan in the bathroom broke fairly early on, on 15 March 2023, and that it was never fixed or replaced. She said that as a result the shower kept getting mouldy. She also said that the door to the outside was difficult to lock which raised a security issue as the deck is low enough to be accessed by passers-by and that she raised this as an issue with the landlord.
The landlord said that they told the tenant to contact the building manager about the extractor fan and that it wasn’t their issue to deal with. They said that they had someone come around to fix the door.
The tenant responded to say that she did contact the building manager who said that the extractor fan had to be replaced. She provided WeChat messages showing that she had communicated this to the landlord. She said that the person who came to fix the door didn’t do a good job but could not present any evidence showing that she had communicated this to the landlord.
I do not find the claim in respect of the door proved. However I do find that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to fix the extractor fan in the bathroom. This is an obligation of the landlord and is now also a requirement of the Healthy Homes Standards. These standards recognise the importance of reducing moisture, and with it, mould. This was a small apartment and so the lack of extractor fan in the bathroom would have had a fairly large impact on the overall space.
I consider that the tenant should be compensated by a rent reduction of $15.00 per week for the period that the extractor fan was broken (from 15 March 2023 so 32 weeks), a total of $480.00. Bed
The tenant said that the bed provided broke during the tenancy and that she had to purchase a new bed. She claimed $800 for the new bed (being $500 for the bed, $200 for delivery and $100 for moving), which she left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said that the bed was in good condition at the start of the tenancy and said that the tenant must have damaged the bed.
I do not find this claim proven as the tenant did not provide any evidence (in the form or receipts or even screenshots of a trademe purchase) for the amount of compensation sought. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44.
The tenant has sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the substantially successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713264 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2C, 2 White Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713264 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2C, 2 White Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

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