What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4795897 about?

The tribunal order states: Hao Chen must pay [The tenant/s] $913.48 immediately, as per the table below:

How much money was awarded in case 4795897?

Compensation: Lack of heater provide…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: overpaid fixed water c…: $413.48 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795897?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10594400-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4795897 about?

The tribunal order states: Hao Chen must pay [The tenant/s] $913.48 immediately, as per the table below:

How much money was awarded in case 4795897?

Compensation: Lack of heater provide…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: overpaid fixed water c…: $413.48 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795897?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10594400-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1308, 57 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4795897 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795897 — net $913.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Lack of heater provided	$500.00	Lack of heater provided
Compensation: overpaid fixed water charges	$413.48	overpaid fixed water charges
Net award	$913.48
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$913.48

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795897 — net $913.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Lack of heater provided	$500.00	Lack of heater provided
Compensation: overpaid fixed water charges	$413.48	overpaid fixed water charges
Net award	$913.48
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$913.48

Order

Hao Chen must pay [The tenant/s] $913.48 immediately, as per the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 th July 2024.
Following the end of the tenancy, the tenant raised the following issues to the Tribunal. a. The landlord failed to lodge the bond to the Bond Centre within the required timeframe; b. The landlord did not provide Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) statement and the landlord did not provide a heater; c. The water and electricity bills were very high despite normal usage; d. The landlord required copies of the tenants’ passports without providing a copy of the landlord’s passport for the tenants; e. The landlord stipulated a “leaving fee of $1,500.00” in the tenancy agreement; f. The landlord tried to increase rent without providing the required notice period; g. The landlord tried to deduct amounts from the bond claiming that the tenants broke the stove; h. The landlord failed to provide receipts for bond and rent; i. The landlord asked for 4 weeks’ rent in advance of the move-in date exceeding what the law allows; j. The landlord required for the tenant to have the premises commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy; and k. The landlord did not fix the shower handle when requested. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed-term from 30 th November 2022 to 27 th January 2024.
Although the landlord was not a “professional landlord’, the landlord has been owning and managing properties from 2017.
The parties signed a custom-made “residential tenancy agreement”. Although it did note that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applied and that the “bond will be lodged with the Tenancy Services”, the agreement did not have everything required by section 13A RTA.
Notably, the tenancy agreement did not include any insulation statement or the HHS statement but had clauses that were inconsistent with the RTA including the tenant paying for “all electricity, water, gas, telephone and internet charges” relating to the premises and rent review period being 180 days and not 12 months.
The landlord said that he had been using a tenancy agreement template that had been provided from a friend who was a landlord. It was clear that that tenancy agreement template had been outdated for some time.
I deal with each of the tenant’s claims below. Failing to lodge the bond to the Bond Centre
The landlord accepted that he received $1,240.00 for the bond and that he did not lodge it with the Bond Centre within 23 working days breaching section 19(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 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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 said that this was the first time he missed sending any bond payment to the Bond Centre since 2017. He said that he was going through personal family issues at the time the bond was received and he simply forgot to lodge it.
He said that he had a track record of lodging bond to the Bond Centre with previous tenants.
The landlord had never been taken to the Tribunal for not lodging the bond. There was no record of him having been taken to the Tribunal at all.
I accept the landlord’s explanation that he had not intentionally withheld the bond from the Bond Centre.
I note that the bond has already been refunded to the tenant.
Although the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not lodging the bond, I find that it was not done intentionally. Accordingly, I do not order any exemplary damages against the landlord. Failing to provide HHS statement and not providing a heater
As the landlord had not used the standard tenancy agreement template, the landlord did not include an HHS statement.
Furthermore, the landlord only had the premises assessed for HHS after this tenancy had ended.
The landlord said that he had assumed that the premises had complied with HHS as the apartment had only been recently built in 2020. After getting the HHS assessment done in February 2024, it became evident that the premises did not meet the heating standard. I note that the premises passed on all other aspects of HHS.
The landlord never provided the tenant with a heater and the tenant had to buy their own heater and electric blanket to get through the colder months.
Due to the landlord not having the premises assessed for HHS, the tenants were living in a non-HHS compliant premises.
It is important that the landlord provides a heating source for all tenants.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 as compensation for not providing a heating source and not complying with HHS. High water and electricity bills
The tenants claimed that the utility bills were too high despite normal usage and that resulted in significant financial burden on the tenants causing them considerable mental and physical stress and severely affecting their quality of life.
The tenants provided a medical certificate to show that the tenant suffered from anxiety and insomnia. However, I also note that the anxiousness was due to study and life stress which is understandable for international students.
I do not find that the landlord can be faulted for high water and electricity bills as there was no evidence of any water or power leaks anywhere.
However, I did note that the tenants had been wrongly charged for fixed water costs.
There were fixed daily water charges of $0.9775 incorporated in the invoices paid by the tenants.
Under section 39 RTA, the landlord is responsible for outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied. The tenant is only responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation or use of the premises.
This means that fixed water charge is something that the landlord must pay and not the tenant.
The tenancy was for 423 days. With the fixed daily water charge of $0.9775, the landlord must reimburse the tenant $413.48.
I order the landlord to pay this amount to the tenant. Requiring copies of the tenants’ passports
The tenant raised concerns about the landlord requiring copies of the tenants’ passports and said that there could be privacy issues if wrongly used.
It is common practice for the landlord to require verified forms of identification from tenants.
There was no evidence of any misuse of the tenants’ private information.
I see no wrongdoing in relation to the tenant’s passports being required for the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Requirement for a “leaving fee”
The tenants said that they could not leave the fixed-term tenancy as they were worried about the $1,500 “leaving fee”.
A party to a fixed-term tenancy cannot leave until the expiry of the fixed-term.
When a tenant wants to leave a fixed-term tenancy earlier, section 66(2) RTA allows for reasonable compensation for any loss or damage for the other party.
It is common practice for a “break-lease fee” to be stipulated with fixed-term tenancies.
There is no wrongdoing by the landlord. This claim is dismissed. Attempted rent increase without the full notice period
The tenant said that the landlord tried to increase the rent in December 2023 without giving full notice period.
The landlord had notified the tenants on 8 th December 2023 that the rent would be increased from 20 th December 2023.
The tenants pushed back by stating that the notice period as per the agreement was 60 days. As a result, the landlord did not increase the rent.
The landlord said that he was not aware of the notice period and when he found out that he was wrong that he stopped the proposed rent increase.
If the rent was increased, I would have found in favour of the tenant and ordered compensation.
However, as I accept that the landlord did not intentionally try to breach the notice period, I do not make any orders against the landlord. Landlord’s attempt to deduct amounts from the bond
At the end of tenancies, it is common for issues to arise regarding damages.
For any amount to be withheld from the bond, the landlord must prove that damages occurred during the tenancy and that the tenants are liable for causing the damage.
Although there was an issue regarding whether or not the stove was damaged by the tenant, in the end the landlord did not pursue the matter further and refunded the bond in full to the tenant.
As such, I find no issues with what the landlord has done. This claim is dismissed. The landlord failing to provide receipt for bond and rent
The landlord must provide a receipt to the tenant when the bond is paid.
For rent payments, the landlord does not have to give receipts if the rent is paid by automatic payment through the bank unless requested by the tenant in writing.
The tenancy agreement notes the bond amount received.
The rent was paid by automatic payment.
Given that there was no attempt to conceal the bond amount and the landlord’s explanation regarding the bond being forgotten to be lodged, I do not find that the landlord had intentionally failed to provide receipt for the bond.
I make no orders against the landlord. The landlord asked for 4 weeks’ rent in advance
The landlord had initially sought for 4 weeks’ rent as bond and 2 weeks’ rent in advance of the move-in date.
However, the tenants wanted to pay 2 weeks’ rent as bond and pay 4 weeks rent in advance.
Given the total amount to be paid before the move-in was the same, the landlord allowed the tenants to pay 2 weeks’ rent as bond.
Section 23 RTA states that the landlord cannot require the payment of any rent of more than 2 weeks in advance.
Although it is an unlawful act with maximum exemplary damages of $1,500.00, I find that the landlord did not intentionally commit the unlawful act.
I also note that the adjustment was at the tenant’s request.
In those circumstances, I do not find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages. Requirements for the premises to be commercially cleaned
The tenancy agreement required the tenant to arrange commercial carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
Fortunately, this was not a clause that was enforced by the landlord as the tenant does not need to arrange commercial cleaning by law. The tenant only needs to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
If this clause was enforced, I would have ordered costs against the landlord.
However, as there was nothing enforced, I do not award any amounts against the landlord. The landlord the shower handle when requested
The tenant said that the landlord did not fix the shower handle despite raising it as an issue when the landlord was inspecting.
Although it was raised verbally at some point during the tenancy, the tenant never followed it up with any written request to repair.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal does not award compensation. The landlord must be given an opportunity to properly rectify the issue before compensation and exemplary damages can be considered.
I dismiss this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4795897 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1308, 57 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4795897 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1308, 57 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

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