What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4803677 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $2,180.44

How much money was awarded in case 4803677?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803677?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11197032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4803677 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $2,180.44

How much money was awarded in case 4803677?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803677?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11197032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4803677 — Exemplary damages

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $2,180.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages (section 45)$1,500.00 Compensation: Motel charges Filing fee $660.00 $20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,180.44
The landlord must calculate and refund any rent payment charged over $84.00 per week, from 2 July 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $130.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
By consent, the landlord is to undertake an inspection of the premises on 13 January 2025, at 10:00am. As a minimum the assessor will look at the five matters set out below, but consider any other work that needs doing at the premises. After that inspection, the landlord will need to instruct appropriate contractors to any work necessary.
The Tribunal orders that the landlord must complete any maintenance work on the specific 5 mentioned issues, if required, within 2 months of the inspection occurring on 13 January 2025.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against his landlord. Both parties appeared at the hearing in [Event location suppressed] on 10 December 2024.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is now involved, but I will summarise the situation as succinctly as possible.
This is a tenancy of long duration, commencing in 2015. [The tenant/s] is the sole tenant. The landlord was originally Housing New Zealand, but now Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities.
It is plain that things have not gone well over the years, and a range of significant conflicts have arisen.
One of the issues for [The tenant/s], is that he considers that work is needed to the premises, and he does not consider that the landlord has been forthcoming with getting that work done. Some work [The tenant/s] has undertaken himself or got a neighbour to do. Those are claims before me.
[The tenant/s] also considers that the landlord has breached other legal obligations to him, such as around his rent and entry to the premises.
From the landlord’s perspective, I was advised at the hearing today that the landlord has found [The tenant/s] to be aggressive and threatening. Because of that, they have strict restrictions around employees of the landlord or contractors going to the premises, and require security to attend also.
There is also an issue where the landlord does not have a key for the premises. The landlord expects that [The tenant/s] would be at the premises to allow inspections or work to be completed, and have taken [The tenant/s] not being present at the scheduled time, as meaning the tenant was obstructing or not permitting the entry.
In more recent times, Kāinga Ora requested access to undertake works to get the premises HHS compliant. The landlord considered that [The tenant/s] was failing to permit entry to the tenancy, so on 29 February 2024 gave him 90 days’ notice terminating his tenancy. When [The tenant/s] did not leave the premises, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for a possession order. In a decision dated [redacted] the Tribunal ordered that possession return to the landlord on 12 June 2024.
It is not entirely clear to me whether [The tenant/s] actually returned possession of the premises to the landlord, but nothing will turn on that.
What is relevant, is that the landlord offered the tenant a new tenancy at these premises. [The tenant/s] has filed a new tenancy agreement, for a tenancy to commence on 2 July 2024. I understand [The tenant/s] accepted that offer, so as a matter of fact and law, a new tenancy commenced on 2 July 2024.
On 19 August 2024 the landlord withdrew the original termination notice, on the basis that it considered [The tenant/s] had allowed access to the premises for the necessary work to be completed, so the original termination notice was no longer of necessity to the landlord. However as we discussed at the hearing today, that withdrawal is problematic because it was made after the new tenancy commenced, so it would be of no effect.
I also note a further issue [The tenant/s] raised today around information. [The tenant/s] says that he has requested a copy of his file from the landlord, and that the landlord has not provided it. He then made a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, and I see on file a letter from the Privacy Commissioners office of 16 April 2024, which records that Kāinga Ora was in the process of compiling the information, and it was to be sent to the tenant shortly. I am not aware of what information Kāinga Ora has sent to the tenant, but record that in the event the requested information has not been provided, that would be concerning given this matter is in a hearing before the Tribunal. However to be clear, I am not aware of the position Kāinga Ora take on that information request. This application
[The tenant/s] filed this application with the Tribunal on 9 February 2024.
A case management conference was scheduled for 12 March 2024.
In a decision from 12 March 2024, the tenant’s application was dismissed. The Adjudicator recorded that there was no appearance by the tenant at the case management conference, and the application was dismissed on the ground that [The tenant/s] had not prosecuted his application.
[The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing, which was granted in a decision dated 15 May 2024.
A different adjudicator, Mr Greene, convened a pre-hearing case conference. Mr Greene issued an order dated 20 August 2024 recording the outcome from that case conference and the Tribunal’s directions, which I summarise as follows: a. Referral for mediation was declined, as the Tribunal determined it would not be appropriate in this case. b. Confirming the only matters that the Tribunal would be determined at the hearing as follows: (a) A work order for: •A broken bedroom door •The lounge door needs to be put back in place •The gutters need to be repaired and/or replaced •The fan from the bathroom is venting to the roof space, not externally •There is no underfloor insulation. (b) Compensation and/or exemplary damages for the alleged failure by the landlord to repair and maintain the premises and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards; for changing the locks without the tenant’s consent; and for an alleged unlawful entry in 2023. (c) The landlord taking more rent in advance than it can do under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). (d) The landlord charging the tenant for 3 nights’ motel accommodation when the toilet was not working. (e) An alleged unlawful rent increase (f). A refund of the bond (g) Compensation for repairs undertaken by the tenant – to the stove, the toilet and ensuring there was running water. c. Setting timetabling directions, requiring evidence for both parties to be filed 14 days prior to the hearing.
A full day hearing was then scheduled for [Event location suppressed] on 10 December 2024 before myself.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. = Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for 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.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that 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 maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
The District Court has confirmed in the appeal of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, that exemplary damages under the RTA are ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately.

TENANTS CLAIMS

I will shortly consider the claims as set out in Mr Greene’s order. Again I note that the Tribunal’s direction was that these are the only claims that the Tribunal will be considering. I note that Mr Greene’s order carried a right or appeal or rehearing, should either party have disagreed with it.
However, two matters that are relevant for a number of claims, and I will address those first. That relates to accessing the premises for maintenance and inspections, and claimed threatening behaviour of the tenant.
Broadly the tenant’s position is that the landlord has not undertaken maintenance in a timely way. The landlord’s explanation for any delay, is because the landlord does not have a key for the premises, and when they went to the premises the landlord was not home, so they could not get in. The landlord appears to have taken that as an indication that the tenant is declining the landlord entry.
As I explained that the hearing today, the statutory scheme of the RTA does not require that a tenant be present, to allow entry for maintenance or inspections. The landlord’s right of entry is set out in section 48, that provision does require that the landlord provide a minimum period of notice (except in emergencies), but once that notice is provided, the landlord can proceed to enter the premises whether or not the tenant is at home.
What is unusual in this case, is that the landlord says that no key is held for the premises, so other than having a locksmith gain entry, the landlord is reliant on the tenant letting the landlord in. Not having a key, is not a defence available for the landlord, to not maintaining the premises, or other work that the law requires the landlord do, such as comply with the HHS. There were mechanisms available to the landlord to request a copy of the key be provided or to have a locksmith attend so that the landlord could gain entry as needed and provide the landlord a key. I also note that requiring a tenant to be present for any landlord visits places a greater expectation on the tenant than the RTA requires.
The second issue is around alleged threats. I was concerned to hear that the landlord considers the tenant to be threatening, or presenting safety concerns for the landlord’s employees or contractors. Threatening behaviour is unlawful in a criminal context, but if that was occurring, then there is a risk for the tenant. Section 55 is a general termination provision, and confirms that where a tenant assaults or threatens to assault a landlord (including an agent of the landlord), that the Tribunal ‘shall’ order a termination of the tenancy. I record this to ensure there is no mistake as to respective expectations at the tenancy. Work orders
The tenant seeks a range of work orders in relation to defects with the premises. Work orders are orders that require work to be undertaken at the premises. Bedroom door
The tenant seeks a work order in relation to a broken bedroom door [The tenant/s] states that the door handle is broken and this was raised with the landlord in 2020.
The landlord states that there has been a history of aggression from the tenant, and because of that Kāinga Ora has stringent restrictions around attendance at the premises for health and safety reasons.
The landlord states that a scheduled assessment was arranged for 21 November, [The tenant/s] was not there so this was rescheduled for 28 November. [The tenant/s] was again not there, so the landlord has been unable to gain access to the premises. The landlord states that they don’t have a key for the premises. In short, the landlord considers that it has acted appropriately with this maintenance request. Lounge door
[The tenant/s] states that an internal door needs to be rehung as there are problems with the hinges, [The tenant/s] considers that an electrician had removed the door.
The landlord does not know about this door. Gutters
[The tenant/s] states that the gutters are not functioning, and are overflowing, and have weeds growing in them.
The landlord states that the gutters were cleaned in November 2022, and then more recently on 25 June 2024 the trees were trimmed to make it easier to keep the gutters cleaned.
[The tenant/s] considers that there is a further issue with the roof being rusted, so that has contributed to the water not flowing off the roof effectively. Otherwise [The tenant/s] states the gutters continue to overflow. Fan in bathroom
[The tenant/s] states that the extractor fan in the bathroom is venting into the roof, not external to the house.
The landlord states that no complaints have been received from [The tenant/s]. Further the landlord refers to a Healthy Homes Statement dated 16 September 2024 indicating the premises comply with the HHS.
[The tenant/s] notes that this was raised with Mr Greene at the earlier case conference. Underfloor insulation
The tenant states that the floor is not fully insulated. [The tenant/s] referred me to a photograph he took in September 2024 which I accept shows an area of missing insulation under the flooring.
The landlord again refers Healthy Homes assessment report which says the premises are fully insulated. Analysis
Having considered this matter, I find as follows: a. If the bedroom door handle is broken, that would be a maintenance issue, and the landlord is required to maintain the premises under the RTA (S 45). b. Similarly, any issues with rehanging a door would on the face of it also be a maintenance issue. Particularly if that work relates to a door removed by a landlord-contracted electrician. c. If the gutters are not working, that is a maintenance obligation for the landlord, and would also be a Healthy Homes Standards requirement. But I have no reason not to accept [The tenant/s] evidence that the gutters are not currently working properly. d. The tenant believes that the fan in the bathroom is not externally ducted, as required by the HHS. The tenant says he has seen this by looking up into the ceiling. The landlord says that their records are that the bathroom is compliant with the HHS, so that would mean it is externally ducted. However the landlord could not provide me with evidence showing that, such as photographs or a report from a person who has inspected the fan. e. The tenant provided a photograph showing an area of wooden flooring in the subfloor space, which is missing insulation. The landlord accepts that would not be HHS compliant. The landlord will need to attend to that as a maintenance issue.
Following discussion at the hearing, it was agreed that on 13 January 2025, at 10:00am the landlord will attend the premises to undertake a general inspection. As a minimum, the assessor will look at the above five matters, but will also look at any other work that needs doing at the premises. After that inspection, the landlord will need to instruct appropriate contractors to do the work necessary.
The Tribunal orders that the landlord must complete any maintenance work on the above 5 mentioned issues, within 2 months of the inspection occurring on 13 January 2025. Failure to maintain
The tenant says that the oven was broken, and when he uses it the oven will catch on fire.
The tenant says that as far as the toilet is concerned, he had that fixed when the toilet seat broke. Further the toilet was cracked. The tenant said he removed the toilet himself, and he then superglued the crack and then reinstalled it. The tenant says this was done about three months after he reported it to the landlord. The tenant seeks $1,000.00 compensation for this.
The landlord states that the oven was replaced on 5 June 2024, but a work order was raised in 2023 but it was not addressed at that time because the landlord could not gain access to the premises.
The toilet was also replaced on or around 5 June 2024, but again not earlier because of access issues. The landlord states it had not been raised earlier. Analysis
Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlord’s responsibilities and that includes at section 45(1)(b) that the landlord shall “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair”, taking into account the age and character of the premises.
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and there is an associated responsibility that the tenant: notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs; and
I am not persuaded that the landlord has complied with its maintenance obligations. As discussed above, it is not a defence available to the landlord to say that no key was available, and therefore the landlord had discharged its obligations – the landlord has not.
I considered it more likely than not that the landlord knew about the oven and toilet issues, and has failed to maintain those fittings and fixtures in a timely way.
I find the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 around maintenance. I will consider the globalised order of exemplary damages below. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant submits that the premises do not comply with the HHS:
The tenant has referred to the photograph showing a gap in the underfloor insulation.
The heat pump is not the correct size, because a window is missing, so the size of the heat pump would be limitless.
Ventilation.
Moisture ingress in relation to gutters.
Draughts, with reference to a window with a gap the size of a $2.00 coin.
In response the landlord states:
The heat pump meets the required criteria.
The premises are insulated.
The gutters were serviced in 2022.
The landlord understands the premise to comply with the ventilation requirement but accepts there is no evidence of this other than the HHS statement.
The landlord disputes there are draughts.
The landlord is confident that the HHS has been complied with on the date required. Analysis
The tenant has claims that the landlord has breached his obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy but all houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024. Heating standard:
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/
I do not consider that [The tenant/s] has proven that the heat pump he has would fails to meet that requirement. Certainly [The tenant/s] has provide no assessment using the on-line tool which would be necessary to convince me that the heat pump was too small. Insulation standard
The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.
In this case I find there is a breach. A photograph has been provided from September 2025 which shows an area of subflooring without insulation. Ventilation standard:
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.
This claim is marginal. I have not been provided with any photographic evidence of the bathroom vent, or any independent assessment report. It is possible that there is no externally vented fan, but that is no more than a possibility on the evidence before me. This claim has not been established. Draught Stopping Standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
This claim is also marginal. But I have determined there is insufficient evidence to show an unreasonable gap, even taking into consideration the photograph provided by [The tenant/s]. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
I accept [The tenant/s] evidence that the gutters are continuing to overflow, which would not be compliant with the HHS drainage standard.
I find therefore a breach of the insulation and drainage standards to the balance of probabilities. Exemplary damages order
The questioning, is whether exemplary damages should be ordered for the breach of maintenance and HHS obligations, and that requires consideration of section 109 of the RTA. In relation to that provision: a. I consider the landlord’s breaches were intentional, I have no doubt that Kāinga Ora would be well aware of its legal obligations as a landlord, including the obligation to maintain, and the respective right of entry, and HHS. b. The effect for the tenant is that he has not had a properly functioning oven, and a leaking toilet, which did not meet the tenant’s HHS expectations. c. There are strong issues for tenants to live in healthy and sanitary dwellings that are properly maintained, and that is in fact a strong public interest. d. I consider it would be just to make an exemplary damages order in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for breach of section 45, is $7,200.00 Taking into consideration the extent of the breaches, and the low level of rent paid, I have determined that exemplary damages of $1,500.00 would be reasonable, and that is ordered. Changing locks
The tenant states that the landlord changed the locks in February 2023. The tenant said he was not given 24 hours notice of the entry, or that the locks were to be changed. [The tenant/s] confirmed this was the garage door and he went several months without a key, and even then the lock is still now working properly.
The landlord states that on 21 February 2023 there were concerns raised around the welfare of the tenant, so they attended the premises with the Police who gained evidence via the ranch slider door. It was questioned if the premises had been abandoned. On 14 March 2023 the landlord again attended with Police. [The tenant/s] was present and a key was given to the tenant then. The landlord read the contemporaneous notes it held, which included concerns about [The tenant/s] welfare. Analysis
Section 46 of the RTA relates to locks and confirms that during a tenancy neither the landlord or the tenant could alter any existing lock without the consent of the other party. Neither the landlord nor the tenant shall alter any existing lock or similar device, or add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the other given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out.
In my assessment, the landlord has technically breached section 46. Section 46 is a provision which confirms that locks cannot be replaced without the consent of the other party. In this case the landlord had to lock for the garage replaced, without [The tenant/s] consent.
While there has been a technical breach, this is not a breach for which I would award exemplary damages, because I do not consider it would be just to do so. For the reasons as I will discuss further below, I am satisfied that the landlord had a reasonable basis to enter the premises when it did, and given that the garage door lock was damaged in that process, it was of course, necessary for the landlord to have the garage door lock replaced in order to secure the premises. Therefore in the claim for exemplary damages is declined. Unlawful entry
The tenant states that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises, when the police entered the premises as discussed above in February 2023.
Secondly the tenant claims at around 22 October 2024, Kāinga Ora had broken into his house. The tenant considers that he has summoned the Kāinga Ora officer to the hearing today. I note however that no application has been completed, nor have the witness fees been paid by [The tenant/s].
The landlord disputes that there was any entry in October 2024, stating there is no record of that in the landlord’s records.
The landlords position in relation to the entry on February 2023 is that it had proper grounds for that as set out above.
[The tenant/s] seeks compensation of $185.00 for the repair of a ranchslider window, and further compensation for not being able to use the house because of there being no window. The tenant said that the window was broken during the February 2023 entry, he had the window repaired costing him $185.00, and then stated the landlord had that window removed. [The tenant/s] says that this was done out of spite on the part of the landlord.
The landlord refers to the notes which record that the window was already broken, and covered with bubble wrap and golf clubs. The landlord states that they had the window repaired in or around August. Analysis
Again the landlords right of entry is set out in section 48 of the RTA, which holds that in summary the landlord can enter the premises: a. In any case of emergency, or b. With notice to the tenant, or c. With the tenants consent given immediately before the entry.
[The tenant/s] has raised two episodes of alleged unlawful entry which must be considered separately.
In relation to the entry on 21 February 2023, I am satisfied that this entry was in circumstances of an emergency, so no notice or consent was needed. The documentary evidence from the landlord records that the landlord attended in part at least due to concerns in relation to [The tenant/s], it was a welfare visit. The police attended, and entry was gained to the premises, I accept, to ensure [The tenant/s] welfare. The contemporaneous notes from the landlord record: Multiple neighbours said that they had not seen anyone into or exit the property in months. Channa also confirmed with operations support that when there was a serious concern for welfare then police should be asked to perform a welfare check which they agreed to do. The property exterior was overgrown and there was a bad smell coming from the property and the police were concerned that the customer may have been deceased inside the property. Police were able to enter the property fire window that was already broken in the ranch slider that had been covered by bubblewrap and some golf clubs. They checked and no one was inside the property but it was in a poor state.
The RTA does not specify what emergency circumstances would mean for the purpose of section 48, but in my view it must be given an expensive meaning. Based on the record above, I accept that the landlord’s decision to enter the premises were made in good faith, concerned about the welfare of the tenant, which would be sufficient to deem the entry an emergency, meaning notice was not required to be given first off.
The second episode of unlawful entry, is more difficult evidentially. The tenant states that he found a courier envelope inside the house which would have been left by an employee of the landlord who entered without consent. Beyond that no witness evidence has been provided, and I find [The tenant/s] has not presented sufficient evidence to convince me that there had been any unlawful entry by the landlord's employee. I note here that the onus to establish that there had been an unlawful entry sits with the tenant, it is the tenant who must provide sufficient evidence to prove to the balance of probability and unauthorised entry.
There is no evidence to convincement that the landlord broke the ranch slider glass, the contemporaneous record supports it was broken already. Charges for motel accommodation
The tenant seeks an order reversing charges for three nights of motel accommodation.
The tenant said that he called the landlord to advise about the leaking toilet. The landlord said they did not have any plumbers available at that time, but they could put the tenant into a motel for 3 nights while they arranged a plumber. The tenant states that he did not agree to the motel charges.
The landlord says that it was agreed that in order to have the contractors do the work, the tenant was required that he stay in a motel while the work was completed for safety reasons. However when the contractors went to the motel to get the keys, the keys were not left there, and the landlord found the tenant had returned home. The tradespeople went to the premises and [The tenant/s] did not let them into the premises for the repair. As a result the landlord considers that [The tenant/s] should pay for those three nights’ accommodation.
[The tenant/s] states that he was told that he needed to go to the motel, but states he did go home but denies that any contractor showed up. [The tenant/s] says that he wanted the toilet repaired. [The tenant/s] states that he did not agree to leave the keys. Analysis
The evidence is that [The tenant/s] raised in issue with a faulty toilet, and that the landlord requested he moved to a motel for three days, until the repair works were completed. It does appear however that [The tenant/s] moved back to the Tenancy early, [The tenant/s] has acknowledged that. But what I cannot see, is any legal obligation on [The tenant/s] to repay the motel expenses. The landlord was not strictly obligated to commit to 3 days of motel accommodation, is elected to do so for administrative reasons, but that does not become the tenants responsibility.
Because I cannot see any legal obligation on the tenant to pay the three days accommodation charges, I must find that they have been incorrectly raised, and therefore those charges must be credited to [The tenant/s] account. Unlawful rent increase
The tenant’s position is that the landlord has unlawfully increased his rent given his new tenancy agreement, and the fact of the landlords rent increase to $100.00 per week.
The landlord’s position is that the rent is set as an income-related rental. Analysis
As above, a new tenancy agreement was offered and accepted, with that tenancy commencing from 2 July 2024, which says: Your regular rent payment is $84 per week. Your first rent payment of $84 will be charged on 2 July 2024
Certainly the agreement records the market rent for the premises is $500 per week but that does not fix the rent at $500.00. I consider the rent is the $84.00 per week termed ‘your regular rent payment’.
It is the case that the landlord has been charging the tenant rent of $100.00 based on an income related rental.
Section 24 of the RTA relates to rent increases. This has wide ranging restrictions around landlords increasing rent, including that rent cannot be increased within 12 months of the tenancy commencing. That means that [The tenant/s] could only be charged $84.00 per week rent, over the first year of his tenancy from 2 July 2024.
The result must be that any rent charged above that $84.00 per week, must be adjusted in the rent ledger, and that is ordered. Excessive rent in advance
The tenant states that he has been charged more rent in advance than was due.
The tenant says that he was farming bees at the premises. The landlord then had the bees killed and have charged him $65.00 for that. The tenant is very aggrieved around the landlord killing his bees.
The landlord disputes that they killed the tenant’s bees, and disputes raising any charges for this.
The tenant referred to a rent statement showing damage owed of $841.
The tenant says that on 29 November 2023 he was in credit, being more than three weeks in advance. The tenant considers this occurred because he was billed for the bees, which created an excess payment.
I asked [The tenant/s] what evidence he had of the landlord requiring that he pay more than one week of rent in advance. [The tenant/s] referred to a dispute involving Crown Law.
[The tenant/s] states that he has requested information from Kāinga Ora but they have refused to provide it, and has even progressed that via the Privacy Commissioner’s office. [The tenant/s] consider that Kāinga Ora won’t provide the information because it would show the landlord killed the tenants bees.
[The tenant/s] states that the landlord kept taking his rent money after his tenancy was terminated. Analysis
I found this claim difficult to follow. Certainly the RTA prohibits the landlord from requiring more rent than the tenancy agreement would allow, which in this case is one week of rent in advance.
As I have indicated above, I do accept that the landlord has sought a higher level of rent than it should have done, but I do not consider that was an intentional action to have more than one week of rent paid in advance.
Beyond that, I have seen no evidence of the landlord requiring more than one week of rent in advance.
I am not certain what the situation is with [The tenant/s] bees, but there is no claim before me in relation to damages or compensation for the bees. However even if [The tenant/s] was correct, and he was charged $65.00 for destroying the bees, that would not be a charge for rent, that would be a compensation charge which is different.
I find this claim has not been established. Bond
The tenant states he was evicted by the landlord and when that occurred he should have had his bond refunded. Now there is a new tenancy as of 2 July, and Kāinga Ora policy is not to charge bonds so his bond should be returned.
The landlord’s position is that the tenancy is now ongoing, so the original bond applies. Analysis
The original tenancy agreement requires a bond to be paid, but there was no requirement for a bond to be paid under the new tenancy agreement from 2 July 2024.
When the original tenancy came to an end, which was when the new tenancy agreement commenced, then [The tenant/s] became eligible to have his bond refunded.
Section 22B of the RTA applies. That provision confirms that if the tenant applies for the bond to be refunded, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be paid unless the landlord counterclaims or makes a call on the bond – which the landlord has not done.
Because there is no counter claim, and no bond is required under the tenancy agreement, the bond of $130.00 is ordered to be returned to the Tenant. Compensation
The tenant seeks compensation for:
The repair he undertook to the toilet, which was not working from 2022.
The repair of the stove, he replaced the elements at about $47.00 each (four were replaced).
Repair of the water to the premises. The work was undertaken by the neighbour who did this work without consent. However he had no water
The landlord states that the first time the toilet and stove were raised were in November 2023 was the first time this was raised, and it was received in June 2024
The landlord states that no issues were raised with the landlord around water not working at the premises. Analysis
Maintenance is an obligation on the part of the landlord. The landlord is only required to compensate the tenant for maintenance when the following criteria under section 45(1)(d) are met: The landlord shall ... (d) compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— (i). the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and (ii) the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so;
On balance, I do not consider the tenant has proven that the repair to the toilet and oven was likely to cause injury or property damage, or was serious or urgent. Therefore I cannot order that the landlord pay compensation for that repair.
In relation to the water, that would fall into the category of a serious or urgent matter, but there is insufficient evidence that [The tenant/s] notified his landlord of the issue. But another problem for [The tenant/s] is that he is not out of pocket for that work. The work was undertaken by a neighbour it appears, but the neighbour has not charged [The tenant/s] for that work, so there would be nothing to compensate [The tenant/s].
This claim must be dismissed.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant applies for name suppression which is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803677 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803677 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Property management

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Property management