What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4769019 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 4769019?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769019?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10647200-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4769019 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 4769019?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769019?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10647200-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Pigeonwood Lane, Woodridge, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4769019 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4769019 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to provide tenancy agreement with required information	$250.00	Failing to provide tenancy agreement with required information
Exemplary damages: Failing to provide Healthy Homes compliance statement	$500.00	Failing to provide Healthy Homes compliance statement
Exemplary damages: Failing to provide an insurance statement	$250.00	Failing to provide an insurance statement
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond with Bond Centre	$500.00	Failing to lodge bond with Bond Centre
Exemplary damages: Requiring more than 2 weeks rent in advance	$500.00	Requiring more than 2 weeks rent in advance
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4769019 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to provide tenancy agreement with required information	$250.00	Failing to provide tenancy agreement with required information
Exemplary damages: Failing to provide Healthy Homes compliance statement	$500.00	Failing to provide Healthy Homes compliance statement
Exemplary damages: Failing to provide an insurance statement	$250.00	Failing to provide an insurance statement
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond with Bond Centre	$500.00	Failing to lodge bond with Bond Centre
Exemplary damages: Requiring more than 2 weeks rent in advance	$500.00	Requiring more than 2 weeks rent in advance
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Emma Chen also known as Guoying Chen and Vicky Pan also known as Jie Pan must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Vicky Pan attending on behalf of both landlords. Emma Chen was not present at the hearing due to ill-health. However, both landlords filed sworn affidavits as evidence. The landlords were also represented by counsel, Ms Flint. One of the tenants, who filed the application in his sole name, attended the hearing for both tenants (who are husband and wife).
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and breaches of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) following the end of the tenancy. The tenants claims are summarised in the Case Conference Directions order dated 6 March 2024.
The landlord has filed a cross application for compensation. Background
The premises were purchased by Emma Chen and her daughter Vicky Pan four years ago. Both are of Chinese nationality. Vicky Chen has lived in New Zealand since 2003 when she arrived as an international student. Emma Chen came to New Zealand 8 years ago; says she speaks little English and finds it easier to communicate with tenants in her native language. Vicky Pan lived in the premises for some time and she and her mother rented the other rooms in the house to various flatmates, usually international students from China, attending University in Wellington. Handwritten tenancy agreements in Mandarin were signed between Emma and Vicky (as landlords/owners) and the flatmates as tenants which included terms regarding the rent payable, frequency of payments and the start and end dates of the tenancy. Emma and Vicky say the flatmates chose how long they wished to stay and whether to pay rent weekly, fortnightly or monthly. These tenancies may be characterised as flat sharing arrangements and were outside the jurisdiction of the RTA by virtue of section 5(1)(n) RTA which provides that the RTA will not apply “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
Vicky moved out of the premises in May 2022. At that time, there was one flatmate who remained in the premises. Emma and Vicky decided to keep renting the rooms in the house. Each room was separately advertised for rent with tenants having exclusive rights of access to a bedroom (which was able to be locked) and shared access to the kitchen, living room, bathroom, laundry and garage. The arrangements did not meet the definition of a boarding house (which is subject to the special provisions set out in Part 2A RTA, but were residential tenancies covered by other provisions of the RTA. Sometimes the rooms were rented for short periods of time and sometimes longer periods.
The landlords advertised the rooms for rent via the Skykiwi website which they say is the largest Chinese rental website in New Zealand. The website can publish bilingual rental information (English and Chinese languages). The landlords continued to use the same form of handwritten tenancy agreement, in Mandarin, as they used for the flat sharing arrangements when Vicky lived at the premises.
The tenant and his wife (both referred to in this decision as the tenants, although the male tenant filed the application in his sole name) are also of Chinese nationality and came to NZ in early 2023 to study. They answered an advertisement to rent one of the rooms in the premises and moved into the premises on 18 February 2023. When they moved in, the terms of the tenancy agreement were discussed with Emma. They chose the start and end dates of the tenancy and how often they wished to pay rent. A tenancy agreement, handwritten in Mandarin, was signed by the parties.
Both parties provided an English translation of the tenancy agreement which differed in some minor respects. The landlords also obtained a third translation of the agreement prepared by the Internal Affairs Department Translation Service on 26 March 2024. Both parties accept that translation. The key terms of the agreement are as follows: a. The tenancy was for a fixed term from 18 February to 17 November 2023; b. Weekly rent was $280, including water and internet; c. Cost of electricity and gas was to be shared according to the number of occupants; d. If the tenants wished to move out at the end of the agreement, they were to give the landlord three-week’s notice. Failure to notify the landlord of the move-out date would result in the tenant being responsible for paying rent for three weeks, even if the tenant vacated the property; e. Rent was payable every four weeks; f. A bond equivalent to four weeks rent was to be paid; g. From 17 March 2023, the tenants upgraded to a larger room with an ensuite and agreed to pay a weekly rent of $320 from that date.
On 14 November 2023, the tenants advised the landlord that they intended to return to China and then advised that they would be leaving on 19 November 2023. Rent was paid up to 24 November 2023.The landlords maintained that the tenants needed to pay three weeks rent from the date they advised of their intention to end the tenancy on 14 November 2023, This would mean rent was payable to 4 December 2023. The parties disputed the notice period required. Other issues also arose when the tenants discovered that the tenancy agreement did not comply with requirements of the RTA; they were also concerned about whether the property met HHS and maintenance requirements which resulted in this application to the Tribunal. The landlords filed a cross application for compensation claiming the tenants did not leave the carpet and bed mattress in their room reasonably clean.
I consider each of the tenants claims first and then the landlords’ claims. Tenant claims

Did the landlords discriminate against the tenant?

A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation, or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) RTA.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants make several claims (which I find are proved as detailed later in this decision) that the tenancy agreement did not comply with the requirements of the RTA; that the landlords failed to provide certain information required in the tenancy agreement; and the landlords breached some provisions of the RTA. The tenant argues that in renting rooms in the premises, the landlords targeted Chinese students, new to New Zealand, who were unfamiliar with tenancy laws, and this enabled the landlords to rent the property for financial gain in breach of the law. Therefore, the tenants claim that the landlord has discriminated against the tenants because of their nationality and lack of understanding of tenancy law. Discrimination based on race is prohibited by s12(1). A perceived lack of understanding of the law (unless because of some disability) is not a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The landlords submitted that they did not discriminate against anyone in granting, or continuing a tenancy and take everyone they can who applies. While they advertise their property for rent on a Chinese website, that is because Chinese is their first language, and it reduces translation issues. There is nothing which prohibits them from advertising in Chinese specifically and they confirmed that if a non-Chinese tenant applied, they would take them. They deny any intention to exploit Chinese immigrants who may not speak English very well and who are not familiar with NZ law.
As explained at the hearing, the tenants must show that discrimination on the basis of race has affected the grant, renewal, variation or termination of the tenancy. Usually, a claim of discrimination is made in circumstances where the discrimination has resulted in the landlord not granting, renewing or varying a tenancy or where the discrimination has resulted in the tenancy being terminated. That is not the case here. The tenants were granted a tenancy which continued until they chose to terminate it.
After carefully considering the evidence and submissions, I find that the claim of discrimination under s12(1) is not proved. Furthermore, the landlords’ breaches complained about and proved by the tenants are addressed by the awards I have made for each specific breach of the relevant RTA provision, which are the appropriate remedies. Did the landlords fail to provide a tenancy agreement in writing which contains all required information?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlords did not ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing and contain all the required information.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In addition the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement all the information required by section 13A(1) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1AAA) and Schedule 1A RTA.
There is no dispute that the tenancy agreement was written in Mandarin, not English. The tenants say they were not provided a copy. However, they produced a copy of it with their Tribunal application. The landlords gave evidence that the tenants took a photo of the agreement the day it was signed, and they emailed it to Emma Chen. Therefore, an electronic copy was available, and the tenants never asked for a hard copy.
Nowhere in the RTA does it say that the tenancy agreement must be written in English, but it must obviously be written in an appropriate language, which will usually be English. In this case, I am satisfied that both parties spoke and understood Mandarin such that providing the agreement in Mandarin was reasonable in the circumstances, and not a breach of the RTA.
There is also no dispute that the tenancy agreement did not provide all the information required under s13A(1). The tenancy agreement was missing the contact address and email address for the landlord; the email address for the tenant; and the service addresses for both the landlord and the tenant. The landlords accept this was a breach but says that the tenants did have their contact information and knew where they lived as they had visited the address. This of course is not adequate and does not meet the requirements of the RTA.
The landlords are in breach of s13A(1) by failing to include all the required information in the tenancy agreement and they have committed an unlawful act for which the tenants seek exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001).
The District Court has generally rejected landlords pleading confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I am satisfied that the matter of intention in terms of s109 has been established in that the landlords failed to provide a tenancy agreement that complied with the RTA. The landlords claim that they did not know about the RTA and their obligations. However, that does not excuse or mitigate their failure. They ought to have obtained advice or information about their obligations as landlords which is freely available and very accessible through the Tenancy Services website. Residential Tenancy law in New Zealand and amendments to the legislation in the last 5 years or so have been highly publicised and reported on through the media. Therefore, it is surprising that a landlord would not have some knowledge or understanding that they need check their legal obligations. The tenant provided evidence of communications from the landlords in which they specifically referred to NZ rental law which suggests that they were aware there are laws governing residential tenancies or certainly represented that they knew the applicable law. However, they did not check further before embarking on their business as landlords. It is of significant interest to tenants and the Public that landlords comply with their legal obligations in the RTA regarding contact information. The landlords say that they changed their practices and took the steps required to comply with the RTA, after they met with an investigator from the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team (TCIT) concerning this tenancy on 4 January 2024. TCIT wrote a warning letter to the landlords dated 4 January 2024 highlighting the areas of non-compliance and making various recommendations. The landlords advise that they have adopted the recommendations and changed their practices accordingly.
After considering all the factors in s109 and bearing in mind that the landlords appeared to be responsive when contacted by the tenants (despite not providing all contact and service information in the tenancy agreement) and the landlords’ advice that they have changed their practices to ensure compliance with the RTA, I find that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale of $250 is justified.

Did the landlords fail to provide a healthy homes compliance statement?

[The tenant/s]that the landlords did not include healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement concerning insulation, heating, draught-stopping, ventilation, drainage, and moisture ingress standards. Again, the landlords advise that they did not know their RTA obligations and they have since changed their tenancy agreements to comply.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the prescribed HHS information. See sections 13A(1A) and (1CA) RTA.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Emma Chen also known as Guoying Chen and Vicky Pan also known as Jie Panhave committed an unlawful act for which the tenants seek exemplary damages.
Having regard to s109 and the factors that must be considered for awarding exemplary damages, I again find the matter of intention has been established and the same considerations set out in paragraphs 24-29 above apply. In addition, it is of significant interest to tenants that they receive information about the extent to which premises comply with HHS, or whether work is required to bring the premises up to standard, when deciding whether to rent a property. I find that an award of exemplary damages of $500 is justified for the landlord’s failure to provide an HHS compliance statement.

Did the landlords fail to provide an insurance statement?

There is no dispute that the landlords did not provide an insurance statement for the premises because they did not know they were required to do so under the RTA.
A landlord must include a statement in the tenancy agreement which provides information about whether the premises are insured for damage or destruction for which the tenant is liable; if so, the excess, and the statement must inform the tenant of their right to request a copy of the policy. See section 13A(2) RTA.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Emma Chen also known as Guoying Chen and Vicky Pan also known as Jie Panhave committed an unlawful act for which the tenants seek exemplary damages.
Having regard to s109 and the factors that must be considered for awarding exemplary damages, I again find the matter of intention has been established and the same considerations set out in paragraphs 24-29 above apply. I find that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale of $250 is justified for the landlords’ failure. Did the landlords fail to comply with a request for healthy homes information and a copy of the insurance policy?
Under section 45(1AC) RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A RTA.
A tenant can also request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) RTA.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants claim that another tenant residing at the premises, under a separate tenancy agreement (who I refer to as a “co-tenant”), made a request for HHS and insurance information from the landlords on behalf of all tenants living at the premises at the time. The landlords did not provide the information in the required timeframe. In a signed statement, the co-tenant said that he obtained advice about his tenancy agreement from the International Student Support Service at Victoria University (ISS). He says he was seeking advice on behalf of all the tenants, and he shared the ISS advice with the tenants via a WeChat group the tenants residing at the premises set up. The landlords were not part of this WeChat group. The ISS advised the co-tenant to serve a 14-day notice on the landlords asking them to remedy various breaches including a request that they provide HHS and insurance information. The co-tenant sent the landlords a text on 14 October 2023 which attached this 14-day notice. A copy of the notice provided in evidence shows that it was incomplete. The notice is undated; it is not addressed to the landlords with the landlords’ names and addresses left blank; the notice does not record the name of the person sending the notice and it has not been signed by any of the tenants; the compliance date on the notice is blank; and the method of delivery has not been completed.
The ISS also wrote a letter to the landlords dated 23 October 2023 outlining several breaches of the RTA. The letter specifically says that they are writing on behalf of the co-tenant only. It does not say that they are writing on behalf of any other tenants.
The landlords say they never received a request for this information from the tenant. The 14-day notice document sent by the co-tenant was incomplete and did not make sense to the landlords. It was not sent to them by the tenants, nor name them as the requestors, and the co-tenant did not state that he was acting on behalf of any other tenant in sending the notice. The landlords also noticed that the ISS letter was not written on behalf of the tenants. Given that the rooms were rented out to individuals with separate tenancy agreements, they had no reason to believe that the tenants were requesting this information.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I find that there was no evidence presented by the tenants to establish that they requested this information from the landlords nor that the co-tenant was acting on their behalf in making a request for this information. The claims are, therefore, dismissed.

Did the landlords lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

[The tenant/s] that the landlords did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time because they did not know they had to do so.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The landlords’ failure to lodge the bond is an unlawful act for which the tenants seek exemplary damages.
Having regard to s109 and the factors that must be considered for awarding exemplary damages, I again find the matter of intention has been established and the same considerations set out in paragraphs 24-29 above apply. In addition, the interest of the tenants was prejudiced because the bond is the tenants’ money and until it is held by the Bond Centre they would be in a compromised position if a dispute between them and the landlord arose. There is a significant public interest in ensuring that tenant bonds are held by the Bond Centre as stakeholder as intended by Parliament. I find that an award of exemplary damages of $500 is justified for the landlords’ failure.

Did the landlords require more than 2 weeks rent in advance?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlords required more than two weeks rent in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires.
A landlord must not require a tenant to pay more than two weeks in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires. See section 23(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 23(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
When the tenants and Emma Chen met to consider and sign the tenancy agreement, they discussed how often the tenants wished to pay rent with Emma suggesting weekly, fortnightly or every 4 weeks as payment options. The tenants chose to pay rent every 4 weeks, and this was written into the tenancy agreement. The landlords also sent follow up emails to the tenants during the tenancy to remind them of the 4-weekly rent payment due from time to time.
The tenants say that the agreement records 4 weekly rent payments, and they didn’t really talk about or negotiate other payment options.
The landlords maintain that they did not require 4 weekly rent payments and the tenants chose this payment option. However, I am not persuaded by that argument. Tenants are entitled to expect that a landlord will only offer them a tenancy on terms that comply with the RTA. In suggesting a payment option that is not permitted under the RTA, I consider the landlord cannot claim that choosing the unlawful option is voluntary. In any event, the tenants cannot opt to contract out of the RTA by waiving their rights. See section 11 RTA.
I find the landlords have committed an unlawful act for which the tenants seek exemplary damages.
Having regard to s109 and the factors that must be considered for awarding exemplary damages, I again find the matter of intention has been established and the same considerations set out in paragraphs 24-29 above apply. I find that an award of exemplary damages of $500 is justified for the landlords’ failure.

Did the landlords fail to provide a receipt for a cash rent payment?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not issued a receipt for a cash rent payment.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants say that in mid-March 2023, they paid the landlord, Emma Chen, four weeks’ rent in cash and never received a receipt. They referred to WeChat messages with both landlords on 15 March 2023 in which they wanted to make a cash payment but were told that the landlords did not want to accept cash and a direct bank payment was required. The landlords also noted that Emma was unable to come and collect the cash rent as she was undergoing a surgical procedure and would be recuperating. There were further WeChat messages between Emma Chen and the female tenant on 18 March 2023 in which the female tenant enquired about her health. In a message sent at 8.37pm on 18 March 2023, Emma advised that once her condition improved she would be able to walk and drive and would then come and chat to the female tenant.
Emma Chen’s evidence is that after the WeChat messages on 18 March 2023, the female tenant rang her suddenly at 8.40pm that day and asked her to visit and collect the cash rent payment. She explained that the tenants had already withdrawn the cash and wanted to make sure it was paid that day which was the due date for the payment. Ms Chen says that while she was not fully recovered she went to the property immediately, arriving at 9pm. She says that she rang Vicky Pan from the property to ask her opinion about accepting cash. Vicky advised her not to accept it, but the male tenant insisted. Emma therefore collected the cash payment. She says that she then wrote out a receipt, took a photo of it on her phone and handed the original to the tenants. She produced a copy of the photographed receipt in evidence. Another co-tenant who was present at the time swore an affidavit which supports Emma Chen’s evidence regarding the date, time and giving a receipt.
The tenants dispute, Emma Chen’s version of events. They say that the credibility of the co-tenant giving the above affidavit in support should be evaluated carefully because this co-tenant has had previous disputes with the tenants. The tenants produced a statement from another co-tenant in that regard. The tenants also suggested that they were not home when Ms Chen claims she collected the cash. However, they confirmed at the hearing that their independent witness could only confirm that they were in Paraparaumu until dinner time on 18 March 2023. Therefore, it is possible that they were home at 9pm as Ms Chen contends. They also dispute that Ms Chen visited at this time given that she had indicated in her message at 8.37pm that she would not visit until her condition improved. Therefore, they argue that her claim that she then visited at 9pm is unlikely. Finally, they note that Ms Chen did not provide evidence of the date and time she says she photographed the receipt produced in evidence, suggesting it was manufactured for the hearing.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I find that there is insufficient evidence to contradict the landlord’s version of events. Accordingly, I find that a receipt for the cash payment was likely given by the landlord and the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord contract to contravene or evade the provisions of the RTA?

The tenant alleges that the landlord required them to sign an agreement which is contrary to their rights under the RTA.
No person may enter into any transaction, contract, or arrangement, or do anything: a. that contravenes, or will contravene, any provision of the RTA; or b. for the purpose, or having the effect of, evading, defeating or preventing the operation of any provision of that Act. See section 137(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 137(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
There is no denying that the tenancy agreement prepared by the landlords breached many of the provisions of the RTA. However, section 137A RTA and the District Court in Manage My Rental Limited v Baxter [2015] NZDC12011 confirms that where there could be several exemplary damages orders made for the same underlying event, only one order should be made. In this case, I have already made orders for exemplary damages in respect of the contents of the tenancy agreement and specific unlawful acts in the RTA. The tenants are not entitled to multiple sanctions for the same underlying acts. Therefore, the claim for exemplary damages under s137(2) is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to comply with smoke alarm requirements, healthy homes standards and maintenance obligations?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA as follows: a. Under 45(1)(b)—by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair because the premises were damp and mouldy; b. Under section 45(1)(ba) RTA by failing to comply with all smoke alarm requirements; c. Under section 45(1)(bb) RTA by failing to comply with the landlord’s HHS obligations in relation to insulation and heating.
Breaching any of the above obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In respect of the allegations of failing to maintain the premises, it is It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants confirmed at the hearing that they did not report any problems to the landlord during the tenancy concerning mould or dampness issues. There are also no photos to show the presence of mould or dampness at the premises during the tenancy. In the absence of evidence that they reported the issue or that there were obvious signs of mould and damp, the claim must be dismissed.
In relation to compliance with smoke alarm requirements, insulation and heating standards, the tenants did not present any evidence to show non-compliance. The landlord on the other hand presented evidence of three smoke alarms in the house being replaced in November 2022. They also provided a Healthy Homes assessment report completed by Healthy Homes Inspections Wellington on 7 February 2024. The inspector found that the premises complied with all HHS standards including heating and insulation. The landlords advised that they did not carry out any work at the premises after the tenancy terminated on 19 November 2023 and before the date of the assessment. In the absence of evidence showing non-compliance with smoke alarm, insulation and heating requirements, the claims must be dismissed. Other general damages and costs claims
The tenants say the landlord called the female tenant in January 2024 after the tenancy had ended and threatened her. It is also alleged that the landlords sent threatening WeChat messages regarding the claims filed in the Tribunal. They sought compensation for the mental anguish , significant distress and emotional harm caused. This claim was not pursued at the hearing and nor would it be appropriate to do so. The tenants are not entitled to pursue the landlord for these types of claims which relate to behaviour between the parties after the tenancy has ended. While breaches of quiet enjoyment and harassment, can be pursued under the RTA, the breach must be an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of such behaviour after the tenancy has ended which does not affect the tenants’ use of the premises.
The tenants also claimed the equivalent of one months’ lost wages due to the time spent researching and gathering information for the application to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has no power to award costs to or against any party in the Tribunal except in very limited situations which do not apply here. See section 102 RTA. Bond refund and rent in lieu of notice
The tenants seek refund of their bond paid at the start of the tenancy of $1,120. It was agreed at the hearing that the landlord has already refunded $753 to the tenants paid by a bank transfer of $503 and a cash payment of $250. It was also agreed and accepted that the landlord deducted $160 from the bond to cover utility costs. Therefore, the landlord is holding the balance bond of $207.
The landlord claims rent in lieu of notice. While the tenancy agreement provided that the term of the tenancy was for a fixed term to end on 17 November 2023, it also stated that the tenants must provide three weeks’ notice to end the tenancy. The tenants gave notice on 14 November 2023 to end the tenancy on 19 November 2023. The landlords calculate that 21 days’ notice, if given on 14 November, would expire on 4 December 2023. Therefore, they claim rent is owed to that date. The tenants paid rent to 24 November 2023. The landlord says it is owed 10 days rent which would total $457.14. They are prepared to accept the balance bond held of $207 for rent.
The notice required in the tenancy agreement is less than the notice that the landlord is entitled to under the RTA. Section 60A provides that on the expiry of a fixed term, the tenancy automatically becomes a periodic tenancy unless the parties mutually agree to continue or end the tenancy; or one of the parties gives a notice to terminate in accordance with the provisions of the RTA. The effect of sections 60A, 50 and 51 is that the tenants here were required to give the landlord at least 28 days written notice to end the tenancy, even where they intended it to end on the expiry of the fixed term or a later date.
However, under s11 RTA, while the tenant cannot waive their rights under the RTA, the landlord may voluntarily waive all or any of their rights under the RTA. Therefore, I accept that the landlord was only entitled to three weeks” notice to end the tenancy as stipulated in the tenancy agreement they prepared.
I accept in the circumstances that the tenants owe the landlord $457.14 rent in lieu of notice but the landlords agree not to pursue the full amount provided they retain the balance bond of $207. I consider this is a just and fair outcome. Therefore, the landlord may retain the balance bond of $207. Landlord claims

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) RTA.
The landlords claim that the tenant left oil type stains on the carpet in their bedroom (likely from food eaten in the room) and the bed mattress supplied by the landlords was covered in blood stains. They claim the cleaning costs incurred of $391.
The landlord produced photos of the condition of the carpet and mattress before the tenancy began and noted that these were on a video sent to the tenants before their tenancy started on 18 February 2023. However, the photos were not close-up and did not show the entire mattress. Also, the photo of the mattress was taken before the tenants transferred into the room (on 17 March 2023) and would have been taken either before or during a previous tenant’s occupation of the room. It was acknowledged at the hearing that there was no photo taken of the mattress after the previous tenant in the room vacated and the tenants transferred into the room.
Emma Chen inspected the tenants’ room on 18 November 2023, the day before they vacated. She says she noticed the carpet stains but did not advise the tenants about them until 18 December 2023. She says because of some conflict between the parties when the tenancy ended, she had forgotten to mention it. She also says the mattress was covered with sheets and a bedspread. Therefore, she did not check the mattress. The bloodstains on the mattress were only discovered by a new tenant on 20 December 2023, a month after this tenancy ended.
The tenants say that when they transferred into the room, the mattress was covered by a blue blanket and a pink sheet, and they did not see the condition beneath it. They covered this with an electric blanket which they say was not stained at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, they contend that the stains likely existed before their tenancy began. Alternatively, it is possible that someone could have used the room and caused the stains between the end of their tenancy and the discovery of the stains a month later. They agree that Emma told them about the mattress stains on 20 December 2023.
They also say that they thought the carpet was clean when the tenancy ended. They dispute that the carpet stains were present when their tenancy ended noting that Emma did not mention this to them when conducting an inspection. Also, they say the landlords did not tell them about the carpet stains until they lodged their cross application in March 2024.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the carpet and mattress stains were caused by these tenants during the tenancy, The claims are, therefore, dismissed.
As the tenants have succeeded with several claims brought to the Tribunal, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769019 — Exemplary damages at 10 Pigeonwood Lane, Woodridge, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769019 — Exemplary damages at 10 Pigeonwood Lane, Woodridge, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords discriminate against the tenant?

Did the landlords fail to provide a healthy homes compliance statement?

Did the landlords fail to provide an insurance statement?

Did the landlords lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Did the landlords require more than 2 weeks rent in advance?

Did the landlords fail to provide a receipt for a cash rent payment?

Did the landlord contract to contravene or evade the provisions of the RTA?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords discriminate against the tenant?

Did the landlords fail to provide a healthy homes compliance statement?

Did the landlords fail to provide an insurance statement?

Did the landlords lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Did the landlords require more than 2 weeks rent in advance?

Did the landlords fail to provide a receipt for a cash rent payment?

Did the landlord contract to contravene or evade the provisions of the RTA?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions