What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720779 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4720779?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,228.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720779?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10696105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720779 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4720779?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,228.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720779?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10696105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5122 State Highway 2, Takapau, RD 2, Takapau 4287 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4720779 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720779 — net $342.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,228.57		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: no written agreement(s	$500.00		no written agreement(s
Compensation: wardrobe replacement	$199.00		wardrobe replacement
Compensation: cleaning	$480.00		cleaning
Exemplary damages: no required information		$750.00	no required information
Exemplary damages: interference with services		$1,500.00	interference with services
Compensation: carpet replacement		$500.00	carpet replacement
Total award	$2,407.57	$2,750.00
Net award		$342.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$342.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720779 — net $342.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,228.57		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: no written agreement(s	$500.00		no written agreement(s
Compensation: wardrobe replacement	$199.00		wardrobe replacement
Compensation: cleaning	$480.00		cleaning
Exemplary damages: no required information		$750.00	no required information
Exemplary damages: interference with services		$1,500.00	interference with services
Compensation: carpet replacement		$500.00	carpet replacement
Total award	$2,407.57	$2,750.00
Net award		$342.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$342.43

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord] must pay [the tenant] $342.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

At the hearing on 1 August 2024 the applicant represented herself, appearing by videoconference. The respondent was represented by [The landlord’s representative/s]. The landlord company appeared through its three directors [Director 1], [Director 2] and [Director 3]. The Proceedings
The initial application was brought by the tenant on 24 October 2023. That application (4720799) included the claims determined in this Order and claims that the tenant had been subjected to duress by the landlord, which had also unlawfully terminated her tenancy.
That application was determined by an Order of the Tribunal dated 8 December 2023 which found that the tenancy in question was a short, fixed term tenancy which ended on 30 October 2023. It found that the tenant did not have a right to continue living at the premises beyond that date. The tenant’s claim of having been subjected to duress was dismissed. The remainder of the tenant’s claims were referred to mediation.
On 12 December 2023 the landlord bought an application (4762998) for possession of the premises. That application was superseded by events, with the tenant having vacated the premises on that date.
The dispute was not resolved at mediation and the tenant’s remaining claims were scheduled for hearing. A hearing took place on 21 February 2024. That hearing was adjourned to enable a Healthy Homes assessment to be completed.
On 22 April 2024 the landlord filed an application (4866440) seeking orders for payment of rent arrears and for compensation for cleaning and repair costs after the tenant vacated the premises.
A case conference held on 24 April 2024 noted that new application recording, “Neither I nor the tenant have seen that application, but the claims are outlined in a submission filed by the landlord for today’s hearing. It is apparent that there are substantive claims in that application that will need to be heard and determined. That being so, it is practical to amalgamate the new application with the current proceedings and determine all remaining issues at a further hearing.”
After a further adjournment due to the landlord’s representative being unwell, the tenant’s claims and the landlord’s new claims were allocated this hearing on 1 August 2024. Scope of the hearing
The tenant objected to the landlord’s application (4866440) being heard on the basis that the application had not been made before the case conference on 24 April 2024.
I expressed the view that it was known the landlord had filed a cross application, the directions made in the 24 April 2024 Order were that the new application be amalgamated and heard with the existing proceedings and that fair opportunity had been provided to the tenant to consider and respond to those claims. I accordingly directed that this hearing include determination of the landlord’s claims.
At commencement of the hearing I clarified, and the parties confirmed, that the purpose of the hearing was to: a. enable the parties to address the Healthy Homes report which had been obtained after the hearing on 21 February 2024; and b. consider the landlord’s application. Background
Much of the context to the parties’ relationship is set out in the Tribunal's Order of 8 December 2023 and does not need to be repeated here. The Claims
The tenant claims exemplary damages for the landlord: a. failing to properly document the agreement; b. failing to provide the premises in an adequate state of cleanliness; c. failing to ensure the premises complied with Healthy Homes standards; d. unlawfully cutting off the supply of services to the premises; e. unlawfully entering the premises.
The landlord claims: a. arrears of rent; b. compensation for cleaning costs; c. compensation for carpet replacement costs; d. compensation for cost of replacing a wardrobe. The Agreements
As recorded in the 8 December 2023 Order, the landlord and tenant were parties to a service tenancy agreement which ended on 5 September 2023. They then entered into what was found to be a short, fixed term tenancy from 12 September 2023 to 30 October 2023.
The service tenancy was recorded in a schedule to the employment agreement, which was not signed. The terms of the subsequent short, fixed term tenancy was not recorded in writing other than by way of the tenant accepting an offer made by the landlord’s representative.
While some provisions of the RTA do not apply to service tenancies and others do not apply to short, fixed term tenancies, neither is exempt from the requirements of s.13 and 13A.
Those provisions, require that a landlord provide a written and signed tenancy agreement to the tenant, whether or not the tenant has signed it (s.13). They also require that the agreement contain specifically required information. That information includes details about the insulation in the premises (s.13A(1A)), information about Healthy Homes compliance (s.13A(1CA)) and about the landlord’s insurance cover (s.13A(2))
Breach of each of those obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded (s.13(4) and s.13A(1F)).
The tenant was not provided with a written agreement and necessarily therefore was not provided with the information about the premises that she was entitled to be provided with.
The landlord has thereby committed several unlawful acts.
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.
The landlord says that the service tenancy agreement, which comprised a schedule to the employment agreement, is in a format a form commonly used within the farming community. It says that the arrangement for the tenant to be able to stay in in the premises for a while after the service tenancy ended was not really intended to be a tenancy per se, but really amounted to allowing the tenant to stay on for a short time, because her employment had ended unexpectedly early.
Exemplary damages are intended not to compensate for loss but as a punitive measure to recognise unlawful conduct.
The factors mentioned in paragraph 23 are mitigating factors. There were however fundamental failures to meet the tenant’s rights under each of the 2 tenancy contracts. There is a public interest in landlords being aware of and complying with those obligations.
I consider that an award of $500.00 for failing to provide the tenant a proper written agreement for either of her tenancies would be just. An award of $750.00, the maximum for a single breach, is appropriate for the failure in either case, to provide the prescribed information to the tenant. Multiple breaches were committed but flowed from the same fundamental failure by the landlord to properly document the agreements. Separate awards of exemplary damages for each of the breaches would be unjust. Condition of the premises when the tenancy began
Section 45(1)(a) requires that a landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant claims that the landlord breached that obligation.
It is not disputed that the premises were not cleaned and ready for the tenant’s occupation when she made an initial short visit to the farm in mid-May 2023 and stayed in the premises. The landlord gave evidence of having had the premises thoroughly cleaned before the tenant moved in to begin her employment around 25 June 2023. That is the relevant date for commencement of the first tenancy and the date on which the landlord’s compliance with this obligation should be assessed.
As this is the tenant’s claim, the obligation is on her to provide evidence to prove that claim on the balance of probabilities (ie. more likely than not).
The evidence provided by the tenant does not persuade me that the landlord breached this obligation and the claim is dismissed. Did the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
The first question is if/ when the premises were required to be compliant. Compliance dates for the HH standards vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, if the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 and 3 March 2025, the premises must comply within 120 days of the commencement date.
The evidence persuades me on balance that although the draft employment agreement provides for a start date of 1 August 2023, the tenant was occupying the premises as tenant under a service tenancy from 25 June 2023. The date for Healthy Homes compliance was 120 days thereafter, 23 October 2023 (“compliance date”).
An assessment has been completed by [Compliance company] dated 6 March 2024.
That report assesses the premises as compliant with insulation, draught stopping and moisture prevention standards. It assesses the premises as non- compliant with the heating, drainage and ventilation standards.
In terms of the heating standard the landlord says that sufficient heating was provided, although was not technically compliant because the heater was not fixed to the premises. With respect, that submission is not consistent with the report. The portable heater provided did not have the required heating capacity (3.57Kw).
The landlord also says that the reason the premises were not compliant with the drainage standard was because the tenant had removed one of the downpipes. The tenant acknowledges having done so, to divert rainwater into a barrel for her use after the landlord had disconnected the water supply to the premises.
Absence of that downpipe is a noted reason for the premises’ non-compliance. The report does record however that “Drainage does not comply as drain pipes are not connected to an appropriate outfall such as council stormwater system, so cold, natural water course or another constructed waterway.”
My understanding of the landlord’s evidence is that even with all down pipes intact, the roof rainwater drains directly onto the ground. That being the case the premises would not comply with the Healthy Homes drainage standard, even had that downpipe not being removed.
The acknowledges that the premises do not comply with ventilation standards but says it did not know what those requirements were.
The report satisfies me that throughout the tenancies and as at the compliance date, the premises did not meet Healthy Homes standards. The landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act.
In considering the s.109(3) criteria referred to above, in my view it would be inappropriate not to take account of the fact that by compliance date the tenant’s occupation of the property was within days of ending and it was clear that: a. there would be no ongoing landlord/ tenant relationship between the parties; and b. the premises would not thereafter be rented for residential purposes.
I also take into account that: a. a previously compliant form of heating was provided; and b. there is no evidence of any loss or harm having been caused to the tenant from the failure to have mechanical ventilation or compliant drainage installed.
In those circumstances I am not persuaded it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach. Interference with services
The tenant’s view, communicated to the landlord, was that her service tenancy had evolved into a continuing periodic tenancy.
The landlord disagreed and it’s representative e-mailed the tenant on 22 October 2023 “....you must vacate the bach by 30 October when the water and power will be disconnected”.
The tenant did not vacate and the landlord disconnected the power and water. As mentioned, the tenant diverted rainwater for her use and also rigged up a generator.
Section 45T(2) provides that “The landlord shall not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out.”
Breaching that provision is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 may be awarded.
By deliberately cutting off those essential services, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
In looking at the s.109(3) criteria, I interpret the landlord’s actions as trying to drive the tenant out of the premises, in circumstances when the landlord knew the tenant was asserting a legal right to occupy the premises under the RTA.
The landlord’s claim that it was entitled to do so because the Tribunal had found the tenant didn’t have a right of occupation after 30 October 2023, cannot be a justification as that Order was not made until 8 December.
My view is that the landlord’s conduct was an egregious use of its power over the supply of those services, to try and force through its’ own interests in the situation by making the premises uninhabitable.
The public interest requires that such conduct be discouraged and I find that the maximum award of exemplary damages would be just, with a slight mitigation for the Tribunal having later agreed with the landlord that the tenant did not have an ongoing right of occupation. Unlawful Entry
The tenant says that the landlord’s director(s) must have entered the premises without giving notice as they have described the dogs found living there.
The directors have given direct evidence, under promise that there was no entry into the premises. A photograph has been provided clearly showing the dogs visible from outside.
I note that for the purposes of s.48, which deals with landlord’s right of entry, “premises” does not include land or facilities so a visit that does not include entry into the dwelling itself does not constitute an unlawful entry. Rent
The tenant paid rent to 30 October 2023, the end of the fixed term.
She offered to pay rent after that date but the landlord did not accept it for fear of being seen to have accepted that the tenancy was continuing (even though s.61(3) makes it clear that accepting rent does not constitute permission for a tenant to remain in possession in these circumstances). The couple of payments that were made by the tenant were returned by the landlord.
The landlord now claims rent for the period from 30 October 2023 to 12 December 2023 when the tenant vacated.
The tenant says that the landlord is estopped from claiming that rent.
Under s.61 RTA, “Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.” That is the case here.
The evidence does not prove that the landlord promised the tenant (directly or by conduct) that it would not seek compensation for the tenant’s continuing occupation of the premises – only that it would not accept rent for a continuing tenancy. Also, the tenant has not altered her position to her disadvantage as a result of the landlord’s actions, she has had the use of the unpaid rent in the meantime. Those are key elements for an estoppel claim to be established.
I find that s.61(1) applies and the tenant is liable for rent from 31 October 2023 to 12 December 2023

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 evidence provided by the landlord satisfies me that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy ended.
The landlord claims compensation, based on a self generated invoice, for its directors’ time of 16 hours for 2 persons @ $30 per hour (plus GST) for cleaning work.
Some photographs have been provided showing substantial damage and cleaning required of the floors. The flooring company has provided a statement that, “The tenant had left the property in such a bad state it was the worst house I had ever seen...”
This is the landlord’s claim to prove and the Tribunal must be cautious when assessing compensation claims by self assessment rather than compensating for losses resulting from payments to third parties. It is only appropriate to compensate for the reasonable cost of remedying proven breaches.
Here, replacement (but not cleaning) of the flooring is dealt with separately. I am satisfied that several hours would have been required for that cleaning. Photographic evidence showing the condition of the rest of the premises are not available.
While more hours than that may have been spent, I find that the evidence provided proves a claim for 2 days work to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
I do not find the tenant’s claim proved that she was led to believe the premises did not need to be left clean because it was only to be used for storage.

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.
The photographic and other evidence provided by the landlord proves that during the tenancy the carpet and floor tiles were damaged to the point that they needed to be replaced.
Their age was such that they were well beyond their depreciable life. The landlord is only entitled to be returned to the position it would have been in but for the tenant’s breach, not to benefit from improvements to the premises at the tenant’s expense.
Although the flooring was beyond its nominal useful life, I accept that for the purposes for which the landlord intends to use the premises, as a sports clubroom, the flooring would otherwise have had some utility value and the landlord may not have chosen to replace it yet. A modest award of compensation is appropriate for that residual value. Wardrobe
The tenant dismantled a built in wardrobe at the premises. She says she was entitled to, and was told she should, make the premises her home.
Removal of the wardrobe may have been a minor change to the premises. Nevertheless, the landlord’s permission should first have been obtained. Where minor changes are carried out by a tenant, even with the landlord’s permission, unless the landlord agrees otherwise, the premises must be reinstated at the end of the tenancy (see s.42B(4)).
Instead of having the wardrobe rebuilt, the landlord bought a budget free standing wardrobe/ cupboard. I am satisfied that the landlord has not received an improvement benefit which should be allowed for and the landlord should be compensated for that purchase cost.
As each party has had claims upheld no Order is made concerning the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720779 — Exemplary damages at 5122 State Highway 2, Takapau, RD 2, Takapau 4287

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720779 — Exemplary damages at 5122 State Highway 2, Takapau, RD 2, Takapau 4287

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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