What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797533 about?

The tribunal order states: Greg Renton as agent for Robert Renton must pay [The tenant/s] $1,960.00

How much money was awarded in case 4797533?

Compensation: Failure to maintain (o…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heating: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Wall: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $45.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797533?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10405581-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797533 about?

The tribunal order states: Greg Renton as agent for Robert Renton must pay [The tenant/s] $1,960.00

How much money was awarded in case 4797533?

Compensation: Failure to maintain (o…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Heating: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Wall: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $45.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797533?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10405581-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797533 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797533 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797533 — net $1,960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$350.00		Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$45.00		Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: Garage remote	$90.00		Lock/key replacement: Garage remote
Repairs: Bedroom wall	$80.00		Repairs: Bedroom wall
Replacement: Front door	$200.00		Replacement: Front door
Compensation: Heating		$350.00	Heating
Compensation: Failure to maintain (other		$500.00	Failure to maintain (other
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain – drainage/HWC		$1,500.00	Failure to maintain – drainage/HWC
Exemplary damages: HHS Record		$375.00	HHS Record
Total award	$765.00	$2,725.00
Net award		$1,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,960.00

Claims and awards for application 4797533 — net $1,960.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $45.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement: Garage remote

Amount: $90.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Garage remote

Repairs: Bedroom wall

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom wall

Replacement: Front door

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement: Front door

Dismissed claims

An Extra Four Days Of Rent — I find the tenant left on 6 October 2023 and vacant possession was provided that day. The subsequent __________________________________________________________…
Cleaning — Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
Rent Arrears — Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Property damage Rubbish Removal Cleanliness Rent arrears

Order

Greg Renton as agent for Robert Renton must pay [The tenant/s] $1,960.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Greg Renton as agent for Robert Renton must pay [The tenant/s] $1,960.00 immediately, being the bond.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a lawyer from Community Law.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation. Unspecified compensation for defamation and preparation of his application and preparing his response to the tenant application were flagged but the landlord was advised early in the hearing that neither claim could be considered. Refer sections 78 and 102 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) respectively.
The tenant has applied for failures pertaining to the Healthy Homes Standards and exemplary damages.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The bond has previously been released to the landlord via a s 22A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenant claims the Bond Centre acknowledged an error was made in doing this. Certainly, the failure of the landlord to enter the tenant or her representative’s email address in the application will have hindered the expected prior notification to the tenant before any release. The bond has been (re)distributed as part of this order as the landlord is not entitled to any of it, given the other orders.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Landlord application

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 October 2023. The landlord claimed fours day extra rent due to no keys being returned and $3,900 as rent arrears.
The claim for an extra four days of rent is dismissed. I find the tenant left on 6 October 2023 and vacant possession was provided that day. The subsequent delay was due to the landlord’s confusion regarding his right of access, something he claims was due to advice from Tenancy Services.
The rent arrears claim is a misnomer. The landlord has sought a retrospective sum to represent what he considers was a failure of the tenant to adhere to a verbal agreement regarding access to the premises for work that was compensated by a reduced weekly rent. I do not find any evidence of such an agreement and abide by the contracted weekly rent of $400.00, as set in the signed tenancy agreement. There was no rent arrears at the end of the tenancy and the claim for $3,900.00, based on six months “under renting” is dismissed.

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 tenant did not remove all rubbish. The tenant accepted there were some items left and did not dispute the $45.00 claimed by the landlord.
The tenant did not return the keys or garage remote. The landlord made two claims, the first being $350.00 for two replacement locks and keys, the second being $90.00 for the replaced garage door remote. Having heard from both parties, I conclude the tenant failed to take reasonable steps to leave the keys and remote in such a way the landlord might reasonably be expected to have found them. It was her failure to communicate that necessitated the landlord incurring the costs and I award both claims.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I dismiss the claim for carpet cleaning due to a lack of evidence of such a need to return the carpet to a reasonable condition. Given the issue was smell, and there were at times during the tenancy underfloor odour problems due to an unresolved drainage problem, tenant liability is not established.
I dismiss the claim of $95.00 for trimming shrubs. I do not find such trimming as outlined to be a tenant responsibility. Equally, the claim of $400.00 for general cleaning is not evidenced and is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The second bedroom wall was damaged during the tenancy. A partial repair was attempted by the tenant but I am satisfied the landlord cost of $80.00 was reasonably incurred to finish the repair due to careless damage by the tenant or others in occupancy. This amount is awarded.
The landlord replaced the front door after the tenancy ended. A claim for $900.00 compensation was made. There appear to have been two issues with the door. The first, and well established by photographs, was a crack in the frame running either side of the internal lock (they appear to have aged differently). The second was a legacy hole below that where the tenant installed a deadlock without permission 1 .
This cost is one that is considered a joint responsibility. I am not satisfied the cracking was careless as the tenant had expressed problems with the door closing and more force than might be expected may have been applied due to this. Even if that is deemed fair tear, the subsequent installation of another lock by the tenant was not agreed to by the landlord. The legacy of that installation was a significant hole in the framing timber that could not be easily repaired.
Having considered the age and general condition of the door, as well as the two contributing factors that led to the replacement, I award a part-contribution of $200.00 towards the replacement cost incurred by the landlord. 1 Although not sought by the landlord, s 46(2) provides for exemplary damages when such a device is installed without a reasonable excuse.
The landlord also sought compensation for reinstalling an area of underfloor installation ($285.00) and a replacement cover for the garage sub-board (electricity) ($350.00).
The underfloor installation in one area had been pulled down. The landlord blamed the tenant’s dog and sought compensation for the repair. The damage was evidenced but the cause not. I do not consider it proven as more likely than not to have been the dog. Regardless, other photos provided (for other reasons) show other areas of the underfloor with no insulation. It appears some was removed before this tenancy due to a laundry flooding and never replaced. Given this omission by the landlord, even if I am wrong regarding the cause of damage in one area, the failure of the landlord regarding the other area would make any order against the tenant unjust.
The missing cover of the sub-board was identified by the tenant after engaging an electrical contractor to inspect other issues. The tenant claims it was never there. In the absence of any compelling evidence from the landlord to establish it was there at commencement I must dismiss that claim Tenant application Failure to maintain
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA 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) 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 tenant claims that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. Notices to remedy were served by the tenant on 18 May 2023 and again on 7 July 2023. Not all issues were resolved as raised. The difference in opinion between the parties meant the tenant incurred costs in having appropriately qualified tradespeople attend, especially with regard to plumbing issues.
Under section 45, a landlord must, amongst a number of things, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings or health and safety.
Breaching any of these 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Some of the issues raised are addressed in Healthy Homes sections below.
Other issues remained in dispute and were never resolved. These included the bathroom lamp, external boards missing, overgrown shrubs, and mould.
Concerning issues unresolved via the notices were the occasional backflow under the house due to a drain blockage, and the incorrect installation of a replacement hot water cylinder.
The landlord attempted a repair to prevent backflow. His view was that there was no problem. The tenant engaged an independent plumber who advised the drainage, after the landlord repair, was still flawed and backflows could occur, with an adverse impact on the tenant, particularly from offensive odours.
The hot water cylinder was replaced by the landlord himself. He is an electrician by trade but he acknowledged such a task is typically performed by a plumber. He explained how he piggybacked off some existing piping, although current standards required these be upgraded upon the cylinder being replaced. Again, the response from the landlord to the tenant concerns was tardy and only prompted by another expert assessment that considered there was a serious safety risk from the installation as presented.
The landlord appears to have been resistive to completely addressing the key tenant issues of drainage and the hot water cylinder. I find the tenant clearly communicated the issues and the landlord should have engaged the appropriate skillsets to resolve in a timely manner. I find he has committed an unlawful act regarding these two issues.
I do not find the other issues raised above at [35] as in the notices have been evidenced as landlord failures and unlawful. Healthy Home Standards records
Under section 45, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was requested to provide a Healthy Homes statement on 26 July 2024. Given the issues presenting, such a request seems reasonable. The tenancy agreement in use was an older template that did not contain the HHS information as required at the commencement of this tenancy. The request was also copied to the owner. The letter clearly stated the statutory obligations when such a request is made but it was not actioned. I find they have committed an unlawful act. Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy but in this instance the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. Heating
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy but in this instance the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case, there was an existing Kent log fire (inbuilt). It was of uncertain age and the tenant had some concerns regarding its safe operation. The lack of HHS confirmation at the commencement, and the lack of the actual kW output makes it unclear whether this was a compliant source of heating.
Further complicating matters was the mutually accepted need to replace the roof during the summer. That would necessitate the removal of that log fire. A replacement was to be installed before the colder period in 2023. The installation occurred late March 2023 but a further reinspection was required before a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) was issued. This CoC was not issued until 24 May 2023.
The landlord provided a text message that he sent the tenant in early April after he received local authority email confirmation the new wood burner could be used before the CoC. It is unfortunate he did not sent the tenant the actual email as the wording in his text, combined with some possible scepticism of the tenant, would not have been totally reassuring for the actual occupant of the premises and user of the wood burner.
In this case I have determined that the tenant has not been able to evidence the installed log burner at the commencement was not compliant. The period without the primary heating source was over the warmer seasons and foreshadowed.
I do not find Greg Renton as agent for Robert Renton committed an unlawful act. I do have sympathy with the tenant’s reluctance to use the new wood burner without a CoC, or some official reassurance of it being safe to use. This meant as the days became colder the tenant was deprived of the use of the wood burner and some compensation for this loss of amenity is appropriate. I have calculated compensation on the basis of seven weeks and $50.00 per week, equating to $350.00 compensation. Ventilation
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy but in this instance the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
In this case, the applicable standard states for extractors 2 : Installed BEFORE 1 July 2019: No minimum size or performance requirements but fans must be in a good working order and ventilate to outdoors. This means that the extractor fan must not vent extracted air into a roof space or other space. Any ducting must be connected, intact (i.e. without tears or holes) and installed so that exhaust air can flow freely through it (e.g. no unnecessary kinks or compressions). Any grills or filters must be unclogged.
The mechanical ventilation of the kitchen and bathroom were claimed by the tenant to not be externally vented. This was advised in the second 14-day notice, stating the plumber had checked and found no extraction out of the 2 Refer healthy-homes-standards-ventilation.pdf available via Tenancy Services. external vent. The third extractor fan, above the shower, was accepted by the landlord as venting into the roof cavity and not outside. That extractor failed to comply. It was also showing what appeared to be clogging in the grill.
The landlord explained changes he made to the ducting and he believes he tested it and confirmed external venting. These changes were well after the 120 days from commencement, and only after tenant prompting.
I do not find it proven the kitchen and bathroom venting had no external outlet. I accept the plumber’s observation and have deferred to their expertise in the assessment of the hot water cylinder elsewhere. In this instance, the landlord’s electrical skills have some direct application and his assessment cannot be discounted.
In this case I find the shower extractor did not meet the required standard within the allowed timeframe. The landlord committed an unlawful act.
I do note the demonstrated problem of mould in the shower ceiling area. The extractor is visible in photos and appears to have significant clogging that more than likely would have impacted effectiveness, in addition to not extracting externally. I find the below-standard extractor more than likely was a contributor to the mould in this area, as claimed by the tenant.
I have determined some general compensation is appropriate for this, as well as the other “lesser” issues raised in the two tenant notices. Compensation
Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a common-sense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party
I have considered the shower mould, and other more minor maintenance issues raised in the notices by the tenant that were left unresolved by the landlord, and the subsequent impact on the tenant and her daughter residing there. I have determined external mould or the missing board are not issues that should be compensated. I have considered the cost to the tenant in retaining contractors to investigate and report as required. I award a general compensation figure of $500.00. Retaliatory notice
On 4 April 2023 the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy in May 2023. This was invalid due to the fixed-term tenancy and a second notice was later served, ending the tenancy on 6 October 2023. No claim regarding the illegal notice was lodged.
The tenant claims the notice was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 54(1) requires any claim of retaliatory notice to be made within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy. This application was lodged well after the 28 working days and no consideration of s 54 may be made. The claim is dismissed. Quiet enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in this case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: “Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
From these definitions it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant claimed the landlord’s behaviour interfered with her quiet enjoyment by his failure to adhere to scheduled timings for visits, or turning up with little or short notice. Having further considered the respective submissions and evidence I do not consider such events to justify specific compensation but the landlord should ensure commitments to a tenant are appropriately prioritised, regardless of other conflicting work requirements.
Of particular concern to the tenant were two instances where she claimed the landlord had confronted her daughter. Both times occurred without the tenant present. Once the landlord hand delivered a notice to terminate via the daughter (12 or 13 years old at the time). While the notice was folded it was easily read and the daughter contacted her mother distressed about the termination after doing so. The second incident recounted was in the daughter’s bedroom when the two supposedly argued about bed placement.
While I understand the tenant’s angst at her daughter’s distress, I do not find it proven the landlord conducted himself as her daughter claimed. While young, I assume the daughter is of some maturity as she would be trusted alone at home for periods when work demands necessitated the tenant being away. Time was provided for a potential witness to one event to be contacted but he was unavailable. In fairness to the landlord, if such behaviours did occur those two times, I did not observe such traits during the lengthy hearing, nor does it present in the provided written communication between the parties, nor with the tenant’s advocate.
I fail to find the claim of stress regarding the landlord appearing in an ambulance /or in uniform and any subsequent neighbour enquiry could have reasonably caused the distress as claimed by the tenant.
I make no orders regarding quiet enjoyment. Security
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord required security other than a bond.
A landlord may not require a tenant to provide any form of security for the tenancy other than a bond or a guarantee. See section 18A(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 18A(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant wanted a pet dog. The tenancy agreement did not allow one. The landlord agreed to the pet subject to a pet bond of $400.00 being paid. He stated this was offered by the tenant. While the tenancy agreement was amended to include the pet bond of $400.00 no payment was made.
The landlord committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have determined that the landlord committed unlawful acts I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Some unlawful acts by the landlord were accounted for by him as due to a lack of awareness rather than any specific intent. However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or not known, as a landlord should have the knowledge and systems in place to ensure this does not happen, especially one that is experienced and continues to act as a landlord.
In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the judge commented, “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.” [Para 37].
The landlord is experienced. A number of the failings reflected assertion of historic rather than current statutory requirements.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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
Having considered the above factors, I make the following orders of exemplary damages: a. Failure to maintain – drainage/HWC $1,500.00 – this is at the lower end of the scale, reflecting overall intent and impact but high enough to reflect public interest in appropriate contractors being engaged where necessary. b. HHS Record $375.00 – this is half of the maximum amount possible. There was a clear request for this, accompanied by appropriate advice regarding the statutory requirement and timeframe. This should have been addressed within the 21 days as required. There were legitimate concerns of the tenant regarding the HHS compliance.
The landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the shower extractor meet the required standard. In this instance, I decline to award specific exemplary damages as I am less certain of the intent of the landlord. A separate compensation award has addressed the impact of any failing.
While the landlord committed an unlawful act in stipulating a security (the “dog bond”), I make no order for exemplary damages as I do not consider it was intentional rather reactive and no payment or active demand of the security was evidenced. Filing fee
Both parties have had success in their application. I leave the filing costs where they sit. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797533 — net $1,960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$350.00		Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$45.00		Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: Garage remote	$90.00		Lock/key replacement: Garage remote
Repairs: Bedroom wall	$80.00		Repairs: Bedroom wall
Replacement: Front door	$200.00		Replacement: Front door
Compensation: Heating		$350.00	Heating
Compensation: Failure to maintain (other		$500.00	Failure to maintain (other
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain – drainage/HWC		$1,500.00	Failure to maintain – drainage/HWC
Exemplary damages: HHS Record		$375.00	HHS Record
Total award	$765.00	$2,725.00
Net award		$1,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,960.00

Claims and awards for application 4797533 — net $1,960.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $45.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement: Garage remote

Amount: $90.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Garage remote

Repairs: Bedroom wall

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bedroom wall

Replacement: Front door

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement: Front door

Dismissed claims

An Extra Four Days Of Rent — I find the tenant left on 6 October 2023 and vacant possession was provided that day. The subsequent __________________________________________________________…
Cleaning — Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
Rent Arrears — Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Property damage Rubbish Removal Cleanliness Rent arrears

Order

Greg Renton as agent for Robert Renton must pay [The tenant/s] $1,960.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Greg Renton as agent for Robert Renton must pay [The tenant/s] $1,960.00 immediately, being the bond.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a lawyer from Community Law.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation. Unspecified compensation for defamation and preparation of his application and preparing his response to the tenant application were flagged but the landlord was advised early in the hearing that neither claim could be considered. Refer sections 78 and 102 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) respectively.
The tenant has applied for failures pertaining to the Healthy Homes Standards and exemplary damages.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The bond has previously been released to the landlord via a s 22A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenant claims the Bond Centre acknowledged an error was made in doing this. Certainly, the failure of the landlord to enter the tenant or her representative’s email address in the application will have hindered the expected prior notification to the tenant before any release. The bond has been (re)distributed as part of this order as the landlord is not entitled to any of it, given the other orders.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Landlord application

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 October 2023. The landlord claimed fours day extra rent due to no keys being returned and $3,900 as rent arrears.
The claim for an extra four days of rent is dismissed. I find the tenant left on 6 October 2023 and vacant possession was provided that day. The subsequent delay was due to the landlord’s confusion regarding his right of access, something he claims was due to advice from Tenancy Services.
The rent arrears claim is a misnomer. The landlord has sought a retrospective sum to represent what he considers was a failure of the tenant to adhere to a verbal agreement regarding access to the premises for work that was compensated by a reduced weekly rent. I do not find any evidence of such an agreement and abide by the contracted weekly rent of $400.00, as set in the signed tenancy agreement. There was no rent arrears at the end of the tenancy and the claim for $3,900.00, based on six months “under renting” is dismissed.

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 tenant did not remove all rubbish. The tenant accepted there were some items left and did not dispute the $45.00 claimed by the landlord.
The tenant did not return the keys or garage remote. The landlord made two claims, the first being $350.00 for two replacement locks and keys, the second being $90.00 for the replaced garage door remote. Having heard from both parties, I conclude the tenant failed to take reasonable steps to leave the keys and remote in such a way the landlord might reasonably be expected to have found them. It was her failure to communicate that necessitated the landlord incurring the costs and I award both claims.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I dismiss the claim for carpet cleaning due to a lack of evidence of such a need to return the carpet to a reasonable condition. Given the issue was smell, and there were at times during the tenancy underfloor odour problems due to an unresolved drainage problem, tenant liability is not established.
I dismiss the claim of $95.00 for trimming shrubs. I do not find such trimming as outlined to be a tenant responsibility. Equally, the claim of $400.00 for general cleaning is not evidenced and is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The second bedroom wall was damaged during the tenancy. A partial repair was attempted by the tenant but I am satisfied the landlord cost of $80.00 was reasonably incurred to finish the repair due to careless damage by the tenant or others in occupancy. This amount is awarded.
The landlord replaced the front door after the tenancy ended. A claim for $900.00 compensation was made. There appear to have been two issues with the door. The first, and well established by photographs, was a crack in the frame running either side of the internal lock (they appear to have aged differently). The second was a legacy hole below that where the tenant installed a deadlock without permission 1 .
This cost is one that is considered a joint responsibility. I am not satisfied the cracking was careless as the tenant had expressed problems with the door closing and more force than might be expected may have been applied due to this. Even if that is deemed fair tear, the subsequent installation of another lock by the tenant was not agreed to by the landlord. The legacy of that installation was a significant hole in the framing timber that could not be easily repaired.
Having considered the age and general condition of the door, as well as the two contributing factors that led to the replacement, I award a part-contribution of $200.00 towards the replacement cost incurred by the landlord. 1 Although not sought by the landlord, s 46(2) provides for exemplary damages when such a device is installed without a reasonable excuse.
The landlord also sought compensation for reinstalling an area of underfloor installation ($285.00) and a replacement cover for the garage sub-board (electricity) ($350.00).
The underfloor installation in one area had been pulled down. The landlord blamed the tenant’s dog and sought compensation for the repair. The damage was evidenced but the cause not. I do not consider it proven as more likely than not to have been the dog. Regardless, other photos provided (for other reasons) show other areas of the underfloor with no insulation. It appears some was removed before this tenancy due to a laundry flooding and never replaced. Given this omission by the landlord, even if I am wrong regarding the cause of damage in one area, the failure of the landlord regarding the other area would make any order against the tenant unjust.
The missing cover of the sub-board was identified by the tenant after engaging an electrical contractor to inspect other issues. The tenant claims it was never there. In the absence of any compelling evidence from the landlord to establish it was there at commencement I must dismiss that claim Tenant application Failure to maintain
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA 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) 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 tenant claims that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. Notices to remedy were served by the tenant on 18 May 2023 and again on 7 July 2023. Not all issues were resolved as raised. The difference in opinion between the parties meant the tenant incurred costs in having appropriately qualified tradespeople attend, especially with regard to plumbing issues.
Under section 45, a landlord must, amongst a number of things, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings or health and safety.
Breaching any of these 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Some of the issues raised are addressed in Healthy Homes sections below.
Other issues remained in dispute and were never resolved. These included the bathroom lamp, external boards missing, overgrown shrubs, and mould.
Concerning issues unresolved via the notices were the occasional backflow under the house due to a drain blockage, and the incorrect installation of a replacement hot water cylinder.
The landlord attempted a repair to prevent backflow. His view was that there was no problem. The tenant engaged an independent plumber who advised the drainage, after the landlord repair, was still flawed and backflows could occur, with an adverse impact on the tenant, particularly from offensive odours.
The hot water cylinder was replaced by the landlord himself. He is an electrician by trade but he acknowledged such a task is typically performed by a plumber. He explained how he piggybacked off some existing piping, although current standards required these be upgraded upon the cylinder being replaced. Again, the response from the landlord to the tenant concerns was tardy and only prompted by another expert assessment that considered there was a serious safety risk from the installation as presented.
The landlord appears to have been resistive to completely addressing the key tenant issues of drainage and the hot water cylinder. I find the tenant clearly communicated the issues and the landlord should have engaged the appropriate skillsets to resolve in a timely manner. I find he has committed an unlawful act regarding these two issues.
I do not find the other issues raised above at [35] as in the notices have been evidenced as landlord failures and unlawful. Healthy Home Standards records
Under section 45, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was requested to provide a Healthy Homes statement on 26 July 2024. Given the issues presenting, such a request seems reasonable. The tenancy agreement in use was an older template that did not contain the HHS information as required at the commencement of this tenancy. The request was also copied to the owner. The letter clearly stated the statutory obligations when such a request is made but it was not actioned. I find they have committed an unlawful act. Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy but in this instance the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. Heating
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy but in this instance the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case, there was an existing Kent log fire (inbuilt). It was of uncertain age and the tenant had some concerns regarding its safe operation. The lack of HHS confirmation at the commencement, and the lack of the actual kW output makes it unclear whether this was a compliant source of heating.
Further complicating matters was the mutually accepted need to replace the roof during the summer. That would necessitate the removal of that log fire. A replacement was to be installed before the colder period in 2023. The installation occurred late March 2023 but a further reinspection was required before a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) was issued. This CoC was not issued until 24 May 2023.
The landlord provided a text message that he sent the tenant in early April after he received local authority email confirmation the new wood burner could be used before the CoC. It is unfortunate he did not sent the tenant the actual email as the wording in his text, combined with some possible scepticism of the tenant, would not have been totally reassuring for the actual occupant of the premises and user of the wood burner.
In this case I have determined that the tenant has not been able to evidence the installed log burner at the commencement was not compliant. The period without the primary heating source was over the warmer seasons and foreshadowed.
I do not find Greg Renton as agent for Robert Renton committed an unlawful act. I do have sympathy with the tenant’s reluctance to use the new wood burner without a CoC, or some official reassurance of it being safe to use. This meant as the days became colder the tenant was deprived of the use of the wood burner and some compensation for this loss of amenity is appropriate. I have calculated compensation on the basis of seven weeks and $50.00 per week, equating to $350.00 compensation. Ventilation
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy but in this instance the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
In this case, the applicable standard states for extractors 2 : Installed BEFORE 1 July 2019: No minimum size or performance requirements but fans must be in a good working order and ventilate to outdoors. This means that the extractor fan must not vent extracted air into a roof space or other space. Any ducting must be connected, intact (i.e. without tears or holes) and installed so that exhaust air can flow freely through it (e.g. no unnecessary kinks or compressions). Any grills or filters must be unclogged.
The mechanical ventilation of the kitchen and bathroom were claimed by the tenant to not be externally vented. This was advised in the second 14-day notice, stating the plumber had checked and found no extraction out of the 2 Refer healthy-homes-standards-ventilation.pdf available via Tenancy Services. external vent. The third extractor fan, above the shower, was accepted by the landlord as venting into the roof cavity and not outside. That extractor failed to comply. It was also showing what appeared to be clogging in the grill.
The landlord explained changes he made to the ducting and he believes he tested it and confirmed external venting. These changes were well after the 120 days from commencement, and only after tenant prompting.
I do not find it proven the kitchen and bathroom venting had no external outlet. I accept the plumber’s observation and have deferred to their expertise in the assessment of the hot water cylinder elsewhere. In this instance, the landlord’s electrical skills have some direct application and his assessment cannot be discounted.
In this case I find the shower extractor did not meet the required standard within the allowed timeframe. The landlord committed an unlawful act.
I do note the demonstrated problem of mould in the shower ceiling area. The extractor is visible in photos and appears to have significant clogging that more than likely would have impacted effectiveness, in addition to not extracting externally. I find the below-standard extractor more than likely was a contributor to the mould in this area, as claimed by the tenant.
I have determined some general compensation is appropriate for this, as well as the other “lesser” issues raised in the two tenant notices. Compensation
Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a common-sense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party
I have considered the shower mould, and other more minor maintenance issues raised in the notices by the tenant that were left unresolved by the landlord, and the subsequent impact on the tenant and her daughter residing there. I have determined external mould or the missing board are not issues that should be compensated. I have considered the cost to the tenant in retaining contractors to investigate and report as required. I award a general compensation figure of $500.00. Retaliatory notice
On 4 April 2023 the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy in May 2023. This was invalid due to the fixed-term tenancy and a second notice was later served, ending the tenancy on 6 October 2023. No claim regarding the illegal notice was lodged.
The tenant claims the notice was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 54(1) requires any claim of retaliatory notice to be made within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy. This application was lodged well after the 28 working days and no consideration of s 54 may be made. The claim is dismissed. Quiet enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in this case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: “Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
From these definitions it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant claimed the landlord’s behaviour interfered with her quiet enjoyment by his failure to adhere to scheduled timings for visits, or turning up with little or short notice. Having further considered the respective submissions and evidence I do not consider such events to justify specific compensation but the landlord should ensure commitments to a tenant are appropriately prioritised, regardless of other conflicting work requirements.
Of particular concern to the tenant were two instances where she claimed the landlord had confronted her daughter. Both times occurred without the tenant present. Once the landlord hand delivered a notice to terminate via the daughter (12 or 13 years old at the time). While the notice was folded it was easily read and the daughter contacted her mother distressed about the termination after doing so. The second incident recounted was in the daughter’s bedroom when the two supposedly argued about bed placement.
While I understand the tenant’s angst at her daughter’s distress, I do not find it proven the landlord conducted himself as her daughter claimed. While young, I assume the daughter is of some maturity as she would be trusted alone at home for periods when work demands necessitated the tenant being away. Time was provided for a potential witness to one event to be contacted but he was unavailable. In fairness to the landlord, if such behaviours did occur those two times, I did not observe such traits during the lengthy hearing, nor does it present in the provided written communication between the parties, nor with the tenant’s advocate.
I fail to find the claim of stress regarding the landlord appearing in an ambulance /or in uniform and any subsequent neighbour enquiry could have reasonably caused the distress as claimed by the tenant.
I make no orders regarding quiet enjoyment. Security
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord required security other than a bond.
A landlord may not require a tenant to provide any form of security for the tenancy other than a bond or a guarantee. See section 18A(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 18A(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant wanted a pet dog. The tenancy agreement did not allow one. The landlord agreed to the pet subject to a pet bond of $400.00 being paid. He stated this was offered by the tenant. While the tenancy agreement was amended to include the pet bond of $400.00 no payment was made.
The landlord committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have determined that the landlord committed unlawful acts I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Some unlawful acts by the landlord were accounted for by him as due to a lack of awareness rather than any specific intent. However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten or not known, as a landlord should have the knowledge and systems in place to ensure this does not happen, especially one that is experienced and continues to act as a landlord.
In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the judge commented, “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.” [Para 37].
The landlord is experienced. A number of the failings reflected assertion of historic rather than current statutory requirements.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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
Having considered the above factors, I make the following orders of exemplary damages: a. Failure to maintain – drainage/HWC $1,500.00 – this is at the lower end of the scale, reflecting overall intent and impact but high enough to reflect public interest in appropriate contractors being engaged where necessary. b. HHS Record $375.00 – this is half of the maximum amount possible. There was a clear request for this, accompanied by appropriate advice regarding the statutory requirement and timeframe. This should have been addressed within the 21 days as required. There were legitimate concerns of the tenant regarding the HHS compliance.
The landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the shower extractor meet the required standard. In this instance, I decline to award specific exemplary damages as I am less certain of the intent of the landlord. A separate compensation award has addressed the impact of any failing.
While the landlord committed an unlawful act in stipulating a security (the “dog bond”), I make no order for exemplary damages as I do not consider it was intentional rather reactive and no payment or active demand of the security was evidenced. Filing fee
Both parties have had success in their application. I leave the filing costs where they sit. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797533 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797533 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions