What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755913 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 4755913?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755913?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10003385-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755913 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 4755913?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755913?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10003385-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4755913 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755913 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 8 March 2024: a. Arrange for the installation of a functioning cooktop and oven.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 2 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $900.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Towers Education Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord is to lodge the balance of the bond with the Bond Centre immediately.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. The landlord could not be contacted, despite multiple attempts, with all phone calls going to voicemail. Since the landlord has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This is a fixed term tenancy which began on 28 October 2023 and is due to end on 27 October 2024. The rent is $620.00 per week and a bond of $2,480.00 was paid.
The tenants have applied for a work order to address the lack of a functioning cooktop and oven. The tenants have provided evidence of their communication with the landlord concerning this issue, including emails and text exchanges. They issued a 14 day notice to the landlord on 21 November 2023, and the landlord has still not remedied the problem. The tenants state that the landlord supplied a portable gas burner, which cannot be used indoors for safety reasons.
The tenants also seek exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required timeframe. Since filing the application, the tenants have received written confirmation that $1,080.00 has been lodged. However, they paid the landlord a bond of $2,480.00, so the balance of the bond has not been lodged. Work order
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1 The landlord is also required to comply with the healthy homes standards, and any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the RTA.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under 1 Section 45(1)(b), RTA section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the RTA.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) of the RTA.
In this jurisdiction the party making the claim has the onus of establishing it. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
In this case, I find there is sufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has failed to comply with the obligation to ensure the tenants are provided with an adequate means of cooking in the premises. This is a basic requirement for residential premises and one that is set out under section 120C(1)(d) of the Health Act 1956 as being mandatory for any dwellinghouse. Therefore, the landlord is to attend to the installation of a functioning cooktop and stove promptly. A work order is issued above to this effect. Failure to lodge the bond
[The tenant/s] state 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) of the 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 of the RTA.
The landlord has failed to lodge the bond within the statutory timeframe. Having failed to do so, they have 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) of the RTA.
In this case, I have considered the factors in s109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA. While there has been no evidence from the landlord, it is clear there has been a failure to lodge the bond as required under the RTA. The landlord ought to be aware of this obligation under the law. Although part of the bond has now been lodged, the balance still remains with the landlord. The effect of the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is that the tenants have been deprived of the security of knowing that their bond is in independent hands. It is in the public interest that landlords lodge the tenant’s bond as required by law. The bond is the tenant’s money. The lodging of the bond with a third party ensures that the landlord cannot unilaterally deduct money without the consent of the tenant at the end of the tenancy or without a Tribunal order.
Taking all these factors into account, I award exemplary damages of $500.00. Filing fee
Because the tenants have been successful, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee. Name suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants. As the tenants have been successful in the proceedings, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755913 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 8 March 2024: a. Arrange for the installation of a functioning cooktop and oven.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 2 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $900.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Towers Education Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord is to lodge the balance of the bond with the Bond Centre immediately.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. The landlord could not be contacted, despite multiple attempts, with all phone calls going to voicemail. Since the landlord has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This is a fixed term tenancy which began on 28 October 2023 and is due to end on 27 October 2024. The rent is $620.00 per week and a bond of $2,480.00 was paid.
The tenants have applied for a work order to address the lack of a functioning cooktop and oven. The tenants have provided evidence of their communication with the landlord concerning this issue, including emails and text exchanges. They issued a 14 day notice to the landlord on 21 November 2023, and the landlord has still not remedied the problem. The tenants state that the landlord supplied a portable gas burner, which cannot be used indoors for safety reasons.
The tenants also seek exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required timeframe. Since filing the application, the tenants have received written confirmation that $1,080.00 has been lodged. However, they paid the landlord a bond of $2,480.00, so the balance of the bond has not been lodged. Work order
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1 The landlord is also required to comply with the healthy homes standards, and any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the RTA.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under 1 Section 45(1)(b), RTA section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the RTA.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) of the RTA.
In this jurisdiction the party making the claim has the onus of establishing it. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
In this case, I find there is sufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has failed to comply with the obligation to ensure the tenants are provided with an adequate means of cooking in the premises. This is a basic requirement for residential premises and one that is set out under section 120C(1)(d) of the Health Act 1956 as being mandatory for any dwellinghouse. Therefore, the landlord is to attend to the installation of a functioning cooktop and stove promptly. A work order is issued above to this effect. Failure to lodge the bond
[The tenant/s] state 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) of the 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 of the RTA.
The landlord has failed to lodge the bond within the statutory timeframe. Having failed to do so, they have 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) of the RTA.
In this case, I have considered the factors in s109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA. While there has been no evidence from the landlord, it is clear there has been a failure to lodge the bond as required under the RTA. The landlord ought to be aware of this obligation under the law. Although part of the bond has now been lodged, the balance still remains with the landlord. The effect of the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is that the tenants have been deprived of the security of knowing that their bond is in independent hands. It is in the public interest that landlords lodge the tenant’s bond as required by law. The bond is the tenant’s money. The lodging of the bond with a third party ensures that the landlord cannot unilaterally deduct money without the consent of the tenant at the end of the tenancy or without a Tribunal order.
Taking all these factors into account, I award exemplary damages of $500.00. Filing fee
Because the tenants have been successful, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee. Name suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants. As the tenants have been successful in the proceedings, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755913 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755913 — Exemplary damages

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