What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4731543 about?

The tribunal order states: Nextgen Property Management Limited must pay Cassidy Enterprises Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 4731543?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731543?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11383458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4731543 about?

The tribunal order states: Nextgen Property Management Limited must pay Cassidy Enterprises Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 4731543?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731543?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11383458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4731543 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731543 — net $3,600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of section 19	$100.00	Breach of section 19
Refund of bond	$1,000.00	Refund of bond
Exemplary damages: Breach of section 45	$2,500.00	Breach of section 45
Net award	$3,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,600.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731543 — net $3,600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach of section 19	$100.00	Breach of section 19
Refund of bond	$1,000.00	Refund of bond
Exemplary damages: Breach of section 45	$2,500.00	Breach of section 45
Net award	$3,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,600.00

Order

Nextgen Property Management Limited must pay Cassidy Enterprises Ltd $3,600.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was heard over three hearings held on 9 November 2023, 4 April 2024, and 18 July 2024. Mr Wood represented Cassidy Enterprises Ltd (the tenant) at all three hearings. Mr Martin attended on behalf of Nextgen Property Management Ltd (the landlord) for the hearings on 9 November 2023 and 4 April 2024 but was absent from the hearing on 18 July 2024.
In April 2023, the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for the premises located at 1/40 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu, Auckland. The landlord and the tenant agreed to a periodic tenancy commencing on 1 May 2023. 4731543, 4624763, 47208092 The agreement specified a weekly rent of $500 and a bond of $1,000. The tenant utilised the premises as a boarding house trading as Room Renter NZ.
The tenancy agreement included several key provisions. It expressly stated: • Tenant can sublet the tenancy room by room • The tenant has permission to replace the wall sockets in the bedrooms with sockets that measure the power consumption. On termination of the tenancy, these sockets will be reverted back to the original wall sockets at the expense of the tenant. • Landlord will provide locks for all the bedrooms and 3 keys per bedroom. The Landlord will provide front door keys x the number of bedrooms + 1 • Tenant has permission to make minor alterations and improvements to the house e.g. installing TVs on the walls, repairing holes in walls and touch up painting. • Tenant may change bedroom door locks at any time. A spare key or code will be given to the landlord as soon as practical in the unlikely event of a lock change • House is fully compliant with Healthy Homes Requirements. A Healthy Homes Certificate and Insulation Statement and Insurance statement will be presented before the commencement date.
For the avoidance of doubt, the tenancy is governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenancy agreement includes a contracting-back-in clause pursuant to section 8 of the RTA. Additionally, it permitted the tenant to sublet the premises room by room and confirmed that the property was fully compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards. The agreement further required that a Healthy Homes Certificate, an Insulation Statement, and an Insurance Statement be provided before the commencement date.
This case arises from three separate applications brought before the Tribunal: two filed by the tenant and one by the landlord.
The tenant’s initial application sought a work order, alleging that the landlord had failed to repair and maintain the premises in accordance with the tenancy agreement, including non-compliance with Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord responded with an application seeking a possession order following a notice to end the tenancy, issued on 10 August 2023. The landlord also sought compensation for damage to the lawn, stove elements, reimbursement and installation costs for the second oven and storage costs.
Subsequently, the tenant filed a second application, challenging the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy. The tenant claimed the notice was retaliatory and sought additional orders for repairs and maintenance. The tenant also sought compensation totalling $2,398.21 and, where applicable, exemplary damages. 4731543, 4624763, 47208093
On 17 November 2023, the Tribunal issued an order addressing the tenant’s claim of retaliatory notice under section 54 RTA. The Tribunal determined that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was not retaliatory but was instead issued for a fair and genuine reason unrelated to the tenant’s complaints or maintenance requests. As such, the notice was upheld, and the tenancy was set to end on 20 December 2023.
This decision addresses the remaining claims brought by the parties. The tenant’s application Bond-lodgement
The landlord has breached section 19 RTA by failing to lodge the bond within 28 days of receipt, as required under the Act. The tenancy agreement clearly states that the bond was $1,000, and the tenant provided evidence that the bond was paid, and a bond lodgement form completed on 21 April 2023.
The landlord’s argument that the bond was intended to be $2,000 rather than $1,000 is not relevant to the requirements under section 19 of the RTA. The agreement between the parties clearly set the bond at $1,000, and any deviation from that figure is not substantiated by evidence. Furthermore, the landlord’s claim that the tenant asked not to lodge the bond is denied by the tenant and, even if true, would not excuse the landlord’s failure to comply with the law. Section 19 imposes an unambiguous obligation on landlords to lodge bonds within 28 days, regardless of any informal agreement or misunderstanding between the parties.
The landlord also asserted that the tenancy was a commercial arrangement and that they believed the RTA did not apply. However, the tenancy agreement itself expressly states that the parties contracted into the RTA under section 8. This provision makes it clear that the agreement was subject to the RTA, and the landlord’s assertion of a misunderstanding does not absolve them of their legal obligations. In any case, the landlord has demonstrated knowledge of their responsibilities under the RTA by stating that they have lodged bonds for their other rental properties.
While the landlord raised concerns about the tenant’s conduct, including adding cabins to the property, and over-occupying the premises, these issues are not relevant to the specific matter of the bond lodgement. Complaints from neighbours or damage to the property may give rise to separate claims or proceedings but do not provide a defence to the landlord’s non-compliance with section 19.
Given the breach of the RTA, exemplary damages are appropriate. Section 19(2) allows for exemplary damages where a landlord intentionally fails to comply with 4731543, 4624763, 47208094 the bond lodgement requirement. Although the landlord’s conduct indicates a lack of understanding rather than a deliberate refusal to comply, this does not excuse the breach. However, the Tribunal acknowledges the landlord’s other attempts to comply with obligations in other tenancies and the apparent confusion in this particular arrangement. For these reasons, a minimal award of $100.00 in exemplary damages is considered appropriate. Repairs, maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant contends that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb), and (c) RTA. Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Section 45(1)(bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, and section 45(1)(c) mandates that the landlord also comply with any relevant enactments in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
Although there may be multiple breaches under these provisions, they are treated as a single breach of the relevant section of the Act. In assessing exemplary damages for such breaches under section 45(1A), the maximum order is capped at $7,200, although the number and severity of breaches can be considered when determining the quantum of damages. General damages may also be awarded for breaches of section 45(1) in the form of rent reductions, water rates reductions, or compensation for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity suffered by the tenant. Healthy Homes Standards
In this case, the tenancy agreement explicitly states that the premises were fully compliant with Healthy Homes Requirements and that a Healthy Homes Certificate, and Insulation Statement would be presented before the commencement of the tenancy on 1 May 2023. The landlord’s failure to adhere to these obligations constitutes a breach.
The landlord argued that compliance with HHS was not required because the statutory compliance dates under section 11 of the RTA had not yet passed. However, the tenancy agreement’s clear terms override this claim, as both parties agreed to comply with the HHS from the start of the tenancy. Section 11(1) prevents contracting out of the RTA except where parties agree to a higher standard of compliance, which is the case here.
Regarding specific issues raised, the following findings are made: 4731543, 4624763, 47208095 Room 2 Window: The tenant first notified the landlord about the improperly closing window on the first day of the tenancy, with formal notice sent on 5 July 2023. The landlord attempted a temporary repair with rubber but did not complete permanent repairs until 11 August 2023. This delay, over three months from the start of the tenancy and more than a month after formal notice, is unreasonable. The landlord’s explanation of contractor delays does not constitute a valid defence under section 45(1A), as landlords are required to act promptly to maintain a reasonable state of repair. Holes in Lounge Window Frames: The tenant notified the landlord of this issue on 10 May 2023. Although repairs were completed by 13 May 2023, the delay and the tenant’s account of having to pressure the landlord to act suggest a lack of promptness. The landlord’s argument that this was not a lounge. but a sunroom is irrelevant, as the RTA and HHS require all rooms used as part of the tenancy to comply with the standards. The landlord’s temporary measures to accommodate the tenant do not absolve their obligation to maintain compliance. Heating Source: The lack of appropriate heating source constitutes a clear breach of the HHS, which requires an appropriate heating source in the main living area. The landlord’s defence that the tenant chose the heater is invalid, as it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the required heating capacity under the HHS. Even if the tenant participated in the decision, the ultimate responsibility rests with the landlord. Underfloor and Ceiling Insulation: The underfloor insulation was completed on 29 July 2023, nearly three months into the tenancy, which is inconsistent with the tenancy agreement’s requirement for compliance before the start date. There is no evidence provided regarding ceiling insulation, which raises further concerns about compliance. Extractor Fans: Although extractor fans were eventually installed by 18 October 2023, the delay of nearly six months from the start of the tenancy is unreasonable. The landlord’s explanation of contractor delays does not excuse this breach, as landlords must ensure timely compliance with HHS requirements. Gutters and Drains: Photos produced by the tenant demonstrate incomplete guttering and drains. The landlord admitted that the builder did not complete the job, leaving some areas without proper gutters. This failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair violates section 45(1)(b) of the RTA. Moisture Barrier: The landlord’s failure to install a moisture barrier, citing debris under the house, is also a breach of HHS. The landlord is responsible for arranging necessary work, including debris removal, to ensure compliance. 4731543, 4624763, 47208096 Healthy Homes Certificate: The landlord’s failure to provide the agreed Healthy Homes Certificate is a breach of the tenancy agreement. While the RTA does not explicitly require the certificate to be provided, the agreement’s terms are binding and enforceable.
Considering the breaches outlined above, exemplary damages are warranted. Section 109 of the RTA allows the Tribunal to award exemplary damages where breaches are intentional or result from reckless disregard for obligations. While the landlord may not have acted maliciously, the repeated delays and failures to comply with clear obligations indicate a level of recklessness. The maximum award under section 45(1A) is $7,200. Given the number and severity of breaches, as well as their impact on the tenant and sub-tenants, exemplary damages of $2,500.00 are appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the breaches and encourage future compliance. Other repair and maintenance issues
Regarding the obligation to repair and maintain, section 45(1)(b) imposes on the landlord a duty to investigate and repair any defects brought to his attention within a reasonable time. The time required for repair depends not only on the gravity of the defect but also on the objective evidence of the landlord’s attempts to remedy the problem. This duty exists even if the tenant was aware of the state of repair when entering into the tenancy. A tenant may give the landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach, though such notice is not strictly necessary if the need for repair is apparent or already known to the landlord.
Furthermore, there is a failure to repair if the repair provided is ineffective, non- compliant, or unsafe. Under section 45(1)(c), the landlord must also ensure compliance with relevant enactments regarding building, health, and safety requirements.
Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the landlord has not conclusively breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA. The tenant has raised several issues, including problems with the oven, fuse, and other electrical components; plumbing concerns; and additional maintenance matters such as the light fitting and front door catching. However, the evidence on these matters is conflicting and, in several instances, inconclusive.
With respect to the oven and fuse issues, the tenant alleges that a dangerous situation arose when a fuse was bypassed and that the oven repeatedly short- circuited, leaving sub-tenants without a functioning appliance for several weeks. The tenant further claims that they replaced the fuse and later the oven themselves, and seek reimbursement for these actions. In contrast, the landlord contends that the issues were exacerbated by the excessive use of the premises 4731543, 4624763, 47208097 by sub tenants and suggests that the tenant’s alterations, such as the unauthorised wiring for additional jack points, may have contributed to the problems. The absence of a comprehensive ingoing property inspection report means that it is difficult to establish whether the defective conditions arose during the tenancy or were pre-existing, and I am not satisfied that the evidence proves a failure by the landlord to maintain the premises.
Regarding the plumbing issue, the tenant asserts that a leaking tap was reported and that the problem persisted despite repeated notifications, while the landlord states that he attended the property and rectified the issue by tightening the tap. The conflicting accounts, without clear corroborative evidence, render the tenant’s claim unproven. A similar situation exists concerning the issue of a tap that was too tight to turn off easily; the tenant maintained that the problem existed from the start and required intervention by a qualified plumber, whereas the landlord argued that the tap had been replaced prior to the tenancy and should not have deteriorated so quickly. I am not convinced that the tenant has established that the landlord failed to comply with his maintenance obligations in these matters.
Other issues, such as the light fitting, the locks and the front door catching, and damage allegedly caused by a lawnmower running over power cables, also suffer from conflicting evidence and have not been proven to result from a failure by the landlord to maintain the premises. Moreover, while the landlord has raised concerns that the use of the property by more occupants than originally intended may have accelerated wear and tear, the tenancy agreement itself indicated that the landlord was aware of the likely occupancy levels, and such wear and tear falls within the realm of fair wear.
I find that the evidence does not conclusively demonstrate that the landlord breached his obligations in relation to the other repair and maintenance issues raised. Therefore, these other claims are dismissed. Failure to give proper notice
I have considered the tenant’s claim alleging a breach of quiet enjoyment and failure to give proper notice under sections 48 and 38 RTA. The tenant asserts that the landlord did not provide proper notice for contractor visits on at least three occasions, thereby infringing on their right to quiet enjoyment and privacy, and seeks exemplary damages of $3000. However, the tenant has withdrawn the claims relating to the installation of extractor fans in the kitchen and laundry and the window repair in room 2 on 11 August 2023, leaving only the issue regarding the electrician’s visit on 16 August 2023.
The tenant contends that the electrician did not attend the property urgently, as the landlord claimed, and as a result, the tenant had to replace the fuse themself 4731543, 4624763, 47208098 using a plug-in circuit breaker. The landlord, by contrast, maintains that the electrician was urgently requested and that he notified the tenant, although he has been unable to produce specific evidence of such notice.
Under section 48 RTA, the tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises, and any entry by the landlord must be preceded by proper notice. Similarly, section 38 requires that notice be provided prior to entry or inspection. In this case, the evidence does not conclusively demonstrate that the landlord failed to comply with these statutory notice requirements. The conflicting accounts regarding the urgency and timing of the electrician’s visit leave the matter uncertain.
Given the lack of clear, corroborative evidence that the landlord breached his obligation to provide proper notice, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven their claim. Accordingly, the claim for exemplary damages under sections 48 and 38 RTA are not sustained. This claim is therefore dismissed. The landlord’s application
The landlord sought compensation for damage to the lawn, stove elements, reimbursement and installation costs for the second oven, and storage costs. The landlord did not attend the hearing to present his claims. Based solely on the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that these claims were sufficiently proved.
In reviewing the submissions, I note that the landlord’s failure to appear has significantly undermined the completeness of the evidence presented. As a result, there is insufficient proof that the claimed damages exceed ordinary wear and tear or that the tenant is responsible for the alleged costs. Without the landlord’s active participation to clarify and support his claims, I find that the burden of proof has not been met.
The landlord requested that the matter be rescheduled due to illness after the final hearing was held. However, he failed to seek an adjournment in advance or to provide a medical certificate to support his claim. This request was made at a late stage, and the tenant objected to any rescheduling. Given the longstanding nature of the matter and the absence of timely and substantiated evidence, I found that the request for rescheduling was not warranted.
Based on the evidence, the landlord’s claims for compensation are dismissed. 4731543, 4624763, 47208099 Filing fee and suppression order
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in establishing their respective claims. Accordingly, I decline to order any party to reimburse the filing fee. Furthermore, I decline to grant a suppression order under section 95 RTA. The statutory framework under section 95 requires compelling grounds to justify such an order, and no such grounds have been advanced in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731543 — Exemplary damages at 40 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731543 — Exemplary damages at 40 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions