What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4747350 about?

The tribunal order states: Dream Team Startup Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,645.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4747350?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747350?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10025754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4747350 about?

The tribunal order states: Dream Team Startup Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,645.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4747350?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747350?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10025754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4747350 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4747350 — net $4,645.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$2,125.00	Refund of the bond
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: insulation	$2,000.00	insulation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,645.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,645.44

Order

Dream Team Startup Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,645.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its directors.
The landlord signed a fixed term tenancy with three tenants in November 2020. They paid a bond of $2125. This bond was not lodged. The current tenants lived in the tenancy premises from November 2021 until November 2023. When they moved in they paid $2125 to the departing tenants as bond. No change of tenant forms were completed. The current tenants only found out the bond was not lodged when their tenancy ended. They have brought a claim for the bond and for exemplary damages because the bond was not lodged. The tenant are also concerned the insulation was not up to standard and that the house was cold and mouldy. They have asked for exemplary damages for this breach as well. The questions I have to decide are: • Can the landlord make a claim on the bond? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the bond was not lodged? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the insulation was not up to standard?

Can the landlord make a claim on the bond?

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. The landlord submitted it has 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 is refunded in full to the tenant.

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the bond was not lodged?

Normally an order for the bond would be sent to the Bond Centre and the bond would be put in the tenants’ bank accounts. However, this landlord failed to lodge the bond. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 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(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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.
The landlord submitted that there was no intention to breach the duty to lodge the bond. The directors said the original tenants did not sign the correct forms so they were not allowed to lodge the bond. They also said this tenancy has to be considered in the context of COVID and the uncertainty for the country when the tenancy started. I am not persuaded by this submission. The Bond Centre will accept bonds with only the landlord signature and most landlords managed to lodge bonds during COVID.
The effect on the tenants was stress and additional time needed to pursue the bond, including making this application to the Tribunal. The tenants said there was financial hardship because they had to save up to pay for another bond. It is in tenants interests that bonds are held by an independent third party and there is pubic interest that landlords are penalised when they breach the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $500. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of similar orders against the landlord. Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the insulation was not up to standard?
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises had to be insulated to a minimum standard (see s 45(1)(bb) RTA and Part 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulation 2016). Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation had to have an R-value of at least 1.9 Where insulation was installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in this city. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Breaching the obligation to insulate is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 (see s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenants sent an email to the landlord in March 2023 asking about the ceiling insulation. The house was very cold and damp and the tenants had ongoing issues with mould. One of the tenants went into the roof space and took photos of the insulation and sent these to the landlord. I have seen the photos and the insulation is not the “segments/blankets” as is stated in the tenancy agreement. The landlord promptly had a builder look at the insulation and an extra “blanket” was applied over the top of the existing insulation. The tenants said this made the house noticeably warmer to live in.
The landlord said the ceiling was insulated with “fluff” when they bought the house in 2018. They had a builder’s report done at the time and they were told the insulation complied. I have not been provided with this document. The landlord said the insulation still complied in March 2023, but extra was added to make the house better for the tenants. I have not been provided with any information about what insulation was installed, or the R value once installed.
I am more persuaded by the tenants’ evidence and photos. It seems most likely to me that the landlord would have provided some written proof if the insulation had been up to standard. I find the insulation was not adequate before March 2023, and the R Value after March is still not known.
I also note that the landlord has not included the correct insulation details in the tenancy agreement. Section 13A(1A) RTA requires a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides whether or not insulation is installed in the ceiling, and the details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
The landlord has not completed this disclosure in the tenancy agreement. This means the tenants were not able to properly assess if they should move into this house or choose another with proper insulation. While the tenants have not made a separate claim about the misinformation in the tenancy agreement, I find it is an aggravating factor.
I find the landlord acted unlawfully. The same considerations for exemplary damages apply. I find the landlord acted intentionally by not checking the insulation and by falsely completing the insulation statement. The effect on the tenants was a very cold house, damp, mould on belongings and in the rooms, and extra money spent running heaters and dehumidifiers. It is tenants interests that houses are warm and safe to live in, and there is public interest in landlords being penalised. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000. This is at the lower end of the scale for the same reasons. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have allowed suppression for the tenants because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because of the breaches. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4747350 — net $4,645.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$2,125.00	Refund of the bond
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: insulation	$2,000.00	insulation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,645.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,645.44

Order

Dream Team Startup Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,645.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its directors.
The landlord signed a fixed term tenancy with three tenants in November 2020. They paid a bond of $2125. This bond was not lodged. The current tenants lived in the tenancy premises from November 2021 until November 2023. When they moved in they paid $2125 to the departing tenants as bond. No change of tenant forms were completed. The current tenants only found out the bond was not lodged when their tenancy ended. They have brought a claim for the bond and for exemplary damages because the bond was not lodged. The tenant are also concerned the insulation was not up to standard and that the house was cold and mouldy. They have asked for exemplary damages for this breach as well. The questions I have to decide are: • Can the landlord make a claim on the bond? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the bond was not lodged? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the insulation was not up to standard?

Can the landlord make a claim on the bond?

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. The landlord submitted it has 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 is refunded in full to the tenant.

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the bond was not lodged?

Normally an order for the bond would be sent to the Bond Centre and the bond would be put in the tenants’ bank accounts. However, this landlord failed to lodge the bond. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 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(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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.
The landlord submitted that there was no intention to breach the duty to lodge the bond. The directors said the original tenants did not sign the correct forms so they were not allowed to lodge the bond. They also said this tenancy has to be considered in the context of COVID and the uncertainty for the country when the tenancy started. I am not persuaded by this submission. The Bond Centre will accept bonds with only the landlord signature and most landlords managed to lodge bonds during COVID.
The effect on the tenants was stress and additional time needed to pursue the bond, including making this application to the Tribunal. The tenants said there was financial hardship because they had to save up to pay for another bond. It is in tenants interests that bonds are held by an independent third party and there is pubic interest that landlords are penalised when they breach the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $500. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of similar orders against the landlord. Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the insulation was not up to standard?
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises had to be insulated to a minimum standard (see s 45(1)(bb) RTA and Part 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulation 2016). Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation had to have an R-value of at least 1.9 Where insulation was installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in this city. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Breaching the obligation to insulate is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 (see s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenants sent an email to the landlord in March 2023 asking about the ceiling insulation. The house was very cold and damp and the tenants had ongoing issues with mould. One of the tenants went into the roof space and took photos of the insulation and sent these to the landlord. I have seen the photos and the insulation is not the “segments/blankets” as is stated in the tenancy agreement. The landlord promptly had a builder look at the insulation and an extra “blanket” was applied over the top of the existing insulation. The tenants said this made the house noticeably warmer to live in.
The landlord said the ceiling was insulated with “fluff” when they bought the house in 2018. They had a builder’s report done at the time and they were told the insulation complied. I have not been provided with this document. The landlord said the insulation still complied in March 2023, but extra was added to make the house better for the tenants. I have not been provided with any information about what insulation was installed, or the R value once installed.
I am more persuaded by the tenants’ evidence and photos. It seems most likely to me that the landlord would have provided some written proof if the insulation had been up to standard. I find the insulation was not adequate before March 2023, and the R Value after March is still not known.
I also note that the landlord has not included the correct insulation details in the tenancy agreement. Section 13A(1A) RTA requires a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides whether or not insulation is installed in the ceiling, and the details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
The landlord has not completed this disclosure in the tenancy agreement. This means the tenants were not able to properly assess if they should move into this house or choose another with proper insulation. While the tenants have not made a separate claim about the misinformation in the tenancy agreement, I find it is an aggravating factor.
I find the landlord acted unlawfully. The same considerations for exemplary damages apply. I find the landlord acted intentionally by not checking the insulation and by falsely completing the insulation statement. The effect on the tenants was a very cold house, damp, mould on belongings and in the rooms, and extra money spent running heaters and dehumidifiers. It is tenants interests that houses are warm and safe to live in, and there is public interest in landlords being penalised. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000. This is at the lower end of the scale for the same reasons. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have allowed suppression for the tenants because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because of the breaches. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747350 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747350 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the landlord make a claim on the bond?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the bond was not lodged?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the landlord make a claim on the bond?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because the bond was not lodged?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions