What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808822 about?

The tribunal order states: Crisel Hipolito must pay [the tenant] $6,955.00 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4808822?

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 4808822?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10608608-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808822 about?

The tribunal order states: Crisel Hipolito must pay [the tenant] $6,955.00 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4808822?

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 4808822?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10608608-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808822 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808822 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Order

Crisel Hipolito must pay [the tenant] $6,955.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Crisel Hipolito is also to pay the bond of $1,400.00 to [the tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 June 2024.
The tenants applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 May 2024. ‘
The tenant says the landlord did not keep proper business records and as such she was never quite sure what rent was due and when. Consequently, when at the hearing the landlord made a claim for $1,178.00 rent arrears the tenant disputed she owed that amount saying, that she was up to date with her rent but for the last three days of her tenancy, being 8 to 11 May 2024.
I required the landlord to compile proper business records in the format accepted by the Tribunal to support her claim. Post the hearing, the landlord provided a rent summary that the tenant says is an accurate representation of the rent records she has.
I accept the rent record the landlord has produced is an accurate representation of the rent owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy and award the rent arrears of $428.57 to the landlord.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the glass stove top reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove a hessian bag from the property that she says contained soil.
The tenant says the hessian bag was full of sand and was left at the property by one of the landlord’s contractors and that the tenant did not have anything to do with the bag being brought to or left at the premise. The landlord confirmed she had not looked at the contents of the bag and has assumed it was a sack of soil as she was aware the tenant had purchased soil to try to remedy her concerns about the lawn growing in a patchy formation.
The tenant also refuted that the glass stove top was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. She stated the glass top had some scratch marks on it that were not able to be cleaned away. She confirmed she had thoroughly cleaned the entire premise at the end of the tenancy and that included the stove top.
The landlord confirmed that cleaning to stove top had made no difference to the condition of it and stated that is why the stove top had to be replaced.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims for $100.00 to clean the glass stove top and $20.00 to have the hessian sandbag disposed of.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for these costs accordingly.

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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The glass stove top was scratched so badly it needed to be replaced; b. The walls were damaged at the start of the tenancy when the tenant’s fridge was being moved into the premise by a removal company; c. The vinyl was torn when the tenant’s fridge was moved by the removal company.
The landlord claims the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant should be liable for the costs of repairing and painting the walls, repairing the vinyl and replacing the stove top as she says it was new when the tenancy started.
The tenant accepted liability for the wall damage and the damage to the vinyl flooring. I award the compensation claimed by the landlord for this damage as she has proven the costs she incurred with receipts for the repairs.
The tenant says she did not do anything deliberately or careless that resulted n the scratches to the glass stove top and that the scratches on the photographs provided by the landlord made the scratches look worse than they are in reality. The tenant provided a video of the premise on the day the tenancy ended that proved the glass stove top did not have the significant scratches on it that the landlord claimed.
I am satisfied the tenant has disproved liability for the stove damage and dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation of $700.00 for the stove top replacement. TENANT’S CLAIMS Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant] claims the landlord has harassed her and her wife and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise.
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.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant has provided evidence that the landlord constantly harassed her and her wife for the duration of the tenancy in relation to the undisputed damage caused to the walls by the tenant’s large fridge when the tenant moved in and the lawn that the landlord claims the tenant’s dog ruined.
The tenant says the landlord informed her at the start of the tenancy that she would not repair the wall damaged caused by the tenant’s fridge until the end of the tenancy. The tenant had accepted liability for the cost to repair and repaint the walls where the damage had occurred due to a large fridge being moved into the premise by the tenant. The tenant also confirmed she accepted that the damage would not be repaired until the end of the tenancy as moving the fridge out of the premise could cause further damage.
The tenant says that from a just after her tenancy commenced the landlord constantly accused her of causing patches on the front lawn to die because she said the tenant allowed her dog to urinate on the lawn and the urine burnt the grass. She also reminded the tenant constantly that the tenant was lucky to have been provided a home when she needed it and that she had only been given the tenancy because she was a fellow countryperson from the Philippines and they had a common friend that had vouched for the tenant and her wife.
The tenant says she quickly came to dread the monthly property inspections as the landlord came every second Friday and chastised the tenant and her wife for the wall damage and the alleged damage, they were causing to the small patch of grass out the front of the premise and also continued threatened them that she could end the tenancy if they didn’t comply with her demands. The tenant says that every phone conversation with the landlord consisted of the same allegations being levelled at her and it really upset her and made her feel like the house was not her home and she was walking on broken eggshells all the time.
The tenant stated she was most upset when the landlord told her that a builder the landlord had working at the premise had allegedly said the house smelt like cat poo and the front yard like urine. The tenant says the house was kept immaculate and this was untrue. The tenant claims she spoke to the builder, who denied saying this to the landlord and told the tenant he was professional and would never have said any such thing about anyone’s home that he had worked in. When the tenant confronted the landlord about her comment, she says the landlord became very angry and aggressive with her about her having spoken to the builder.
The tenant provided an email dated 6 March 2023 from the landlord that says “Also, upon inspection of the property, I found grass on my front lawn has died and has a strong smell of animal urine (adjacent neighbours both have green and heathy looking grass that came with the property). You have denied this at time of confrontation and mentioned it was because it had recently flooded in the area. I have responded that I owned many dogs in the past and that’s likely urine that has caused the grass to die. Together with this I have documented over 10 damages on walls including scuff marks and chips. I have decided that it is not to be repaired now and will be repainted and repaired, including the lawn upon the end of tenancy”. This email ends with the line “failure to be agreeable to fair consequences of your actions mentioned above will result to termination of our Tenancy Agreement and issue will be brought to Tenancy Tribunal”. This email confirms that although the tenants accepted liability for the wall damage at the start of the tenancy, 16 December 2022, and the landlord made the decision in December 2022 not to fix the wall damage until after the tenant moved out, she continued to harass the tenant in every communication with her about the wall damage and the grass and made constant threats she would terminate the tenancy if the tenant and her wife did not do as she demanded.
The tenant and her wife say that they did everything they could to look after the property and that they had a professional lawn person come to look at the grass to tell them how to take good care of the lawn. They produced evidence that shows the lawn person told them the foundation for the grass was poor and suggested the only way to get the lawn to grown lush and evenly was to get ready grass laid down. The tenant was quoted $500.00 to do this and decided it was too expensive. She purchased some good topsoil and grass seed and tried to resow the patchy area of the lawn.
The tenant says the landlord just continues to harass her about the walls and the lawn no matter what she did.
On the second inspection in March 2023, the landlord discovered the tenant had an old cat as well as the dog that was listed on the tenancy agreement. The tenant had left a domestic violence situation before the tenancy and had thought she had a home for her old cat. Therefore, she says only sought permission from the landlord to bring the dog, which she got. She says when the person who was to keep the old cat was no longer able to do so, she took the old cat back as the cat just slept all day and never caused any issues. She stated she had no reason to believe the landlord would have an issue with a cat, given that the landlord had given permission to keep a dog, and she forgot to tell the landlord about the additional pet. On finding the old cat in residence, the landlord became very upset. In her 6 March 2023 email to the tenant, she says: “I am writing to you to let you know how utterly disappointed I am with your recent actions that might result to terminating our agreement; see first paragraph of the Tenancy Agreement between Cris Hipolito and[tenant’s name suppressed]. First of all, my property is not just a rental, it is a home I was going to live in but due to change of circumstances, I can no longer go ahead. Among less than 10 serious applicants that all had various cultural and professional backgrounds, I selected you as fellow countryman and out of the goodness of my heart. A mutual friend of ours, “Lynn”, was out on a limb, persuading, assuring me that you’d be the perfect choice. Knowing you needed a place to stay, I did not hesitate. However, at the day of inspection, 2/3/23, I found another pet (cat) which was not disclosed to me during property inquiry, viewing, and contract signing (all done on different dates) which I find uncanny and intentional. Finding out that way was disrespectful and a breach of our contract as I have already allowed your pet dog without rent increase and extra bond at the time of signing. If I knew there was another animal that would be staying in my property, I would not have allowed you to rent my property. In saying this, you have mentioned during my inspection that instead the rent increasing next year to $750.00 (this was due to rent increasing around the area that has similar features and newly built), you offered to pay the $750.00 now to ease my disappointment in finding out about your pet cat. This is to be imposed on the next due rent which is 14/3/23. An additional, $500.00 as a one-off payment due to non-disclosure of an additional pet in the property, that I otherwise would not have allowed. Computation is $50.00 per week since you started renting from me 20/12/22 which equates to $500.00. As well as the remaining water bill that I have paid since you moved in has a balance of $150.72, all receipts were sent to you. I would like both $500.00 and $150.72 to be settled in my bank account by Friday 10/3/23. Also, upon inspection of the property, I found grass on my front lawn has died and has a strong smell of animal urine (adjacent neighbours both have green and heathy looking grass that came with the property). You have denied this at time of confrontation and mentioned it was because it had recently flooded in the area. I have responded that I owned many dogs in the past and that’s likely urine that has caused the grass to die. Together with this I have documented over 10 damages on walls including scuff marks and chips. I have decided that it is not to be repaired now and will be repainted and repaired, including the lawn upon the end of tenancy. Failure to be agreeable to fair consequences of your actions mentioned above will result to termination of our Tenancy Agreement and issue will be brought to Tenancy Tribunal”.
This email is threatening and caused the tenant and her wife significant distress. They had not deliberately withheld the information about the cat and had not had it at the premises from the beginning of the tenancy. They simply forgot to talk to her when they a few months into the tenancy they had to suddenly take the cat back that they thought they had rehomed. They say it happened fast and they had no reason to believe having an old cat that mostly slept all day would be so upsetting to the landlord. It was passed the age of scratching anything or causing any damage to the house.
The tenants say the landlord place her and her wife under duress by telling them the cat had to go or they had to pay a $500 pet bond and have their rent increased immediately. They felt they had no other option but to agree as they had nowhere else for the cat to go and did not want to have to euthanise it.
The tenant says from this time on the landlord constantly harassed her and her wife about animal smells in the house, the patches on the grass and the wall damage in the majority of text, phone call and email communication.
The tenant had her brother some to visit for a while from the Philippines and she says the landlord harassed her about her having to many people staying at the house and told her she couldn’t have her brother live there. The tenant says she explained her brother was visiting and not living there and that the tenancy agreement stated that there could be a maximum of 4 occupants. The landlord she says replied that the tenant also had a cat and a dog and that the landlord counted these as people. The tenant was left feeling like the landlord would not let her live in peace in the house and that she had left a domestic violence situation and swapped it for a situation where she was being subjected to harassment all the time that was causing her significant stress and making her unwell.
The tenant also stated that even when a property inspection went well, the landlord would follow up with calls and text every couple of weeks bringing up the cat, the wall damage and the lawn and how they had vandalised her property. This constant harassment, the tenant says, was endless and led to her and her wife eventually having to move out.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a.The landlord engaged in a pattern of behaviour she knew was causing the tenant and her wife trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by her constant accusations and inability to raise and resolve something and then let it go. She felt the continual need to reiterate that she had the power to terminate the tenancy for things that had been discussed and resolved when she knew the tenant had been traumatised and needed to have a safe space to recover from the domestic violence she had suffered; b.The tenant and her wife suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying to have as a safe haven from duress because of the landlord’s continual harassment of her ; c.It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying to have as a safe haven from duress; and d.It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their quiet enjoyment obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Failure to lodge the bond
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord received the tenant’s bond around 16 December 2022 when the tenancy started. The tenant discovered when she made her application to the Tribunal that landlord had never lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed the failure to lodge the bond with 23 days of receiving payment of it was a simple oversight. Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and to comply with their legal obligations. I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after his receipt of it.
The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages because: a.The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after 16 December 2022, and still did not lodge it by 14 February 2024, when the tenant brought the breach to her attention in her application to the Tribunal. Further, the landlord had still had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre at the date of the hearing, being 21 June 2024 (554 days after receiving the bond from the tenant); b.The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting her bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenants’ benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants’ money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 18 months, and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenant’s knowledge of who held her bond. The tenant only became aware of the breach when she called the Bond Centre to find out how to have the bond released at the end of her tenancy. That was the first, she knew that the bond had never been lodged; c.It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d.it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests. e.I find it fair to set the quantum of exemplary damages at the maximum amount for this category of breach because, the landlord failed to lodge the bond for 18 months and did not lodge it as soon as the tenant brought the breach to her attention.

Was the rent increased unlawfully?

The tenant provided the 6 March 2023 email, outlined at paragraph [41] above in which the landlord states the tenant agrees to a rent increase of $50.00 per week to take effect from 14 March 2023.
Section 24(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms: a.The landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and b.That notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and c.The day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date on which that notice is given; and d.The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 16 December 2022. The rent increase requested by the landlord was less than 12 months after the tenancy commenced and he did not provide the tenant with 60 days’ notice of the rent increase.
The landlord stated she had requested the increase to offset her disappointment at finding out on 6 March 2023 that the tenant had a cat at the premise that the landlord did not know about previously. Further, she claimed the tenant came up with the idea of paying more rent, that it was the tenant’s idea and that an agreement between the parties to increase the rent so the tenant could keep the cat was lawful as allowing the tenant to keep the cat she says is a material benefit that warrants an increase in rent.
Section 28 of the RTA confirms the landlord and the tenant may agree to increase the rent if the landlord has, with the consent of the tenant: a.made substantial improvements to the premises (not being general or necessary repairs) that increase the value of the premises and constitute a material benefit to the tenant: b.increased or improved the facilities or services (other than general or necessary repairs) provided for the tenant: c.agreed to a variation in the terms of the tenancy that benefits the tenant.
The tenant and her wife gave evidence that they were shocked about the landlord’s reaction to the cat as she had been agreeable to them having a dog, had not charged them a higher rent or a pet bond and had not led them to believe she was against animals being housed at the premise. Further, the tenant had been through a lot and when the new home for the cat didn’t work out she happily took the cat back as had been unable to find it another home. Having already had permission to keep a dog, she did not think the landlord would insist keeping the cat would lead to an increase in rent and the payment of a lump sum bond/penalty payment.
The tenant and her wife gave evidence they did not come up with the idea of paying more rent, nor did they agree to the rent increase without being put under extreme duress of the landlord’s ultimatum to pay the increase and pet bond/penalty payment or she would terminate the tenancy if they did not. The other alternative the tenant says she was given, was to “get rid of the cat”.
I am satisfied the tenant did not agree to the rent increase and accept that she was threatened into accepting the landlord’s demand for an immediate $50.00 per week increase from 16 March 2023 and a lump sum penalty payment/pet bond of $500.00 to be paid by 10 March 2023.
I award the tenant compensation for the additional $50.00 a week she was required to pay from 16 March 2023 to 11 May 2024 (60 weeks and 4 days), being $3,028.57.
At first it was unclear to me whether this $500.00 pet bond/penalty payment was an extension of the unlawful rent increase of a requirement for a pet bond. I note that if this was a demand for a pet bond, a landlord may not require a tenant to provide the landlord with any form of security to secure any payment or performance arising out of, or in connection with, the tenancy, except for the bond of 4 weeks provided for under s18 of the RTA and set out in the tenancy agreement. See section 18A(1) of the RTA
After considering all the evidence, I find the pet bond/penalty was an extension of the unlawful rent increase. Accordingly, I also award the tenant compensation for the $500.00 pet bond/penalty payment she was forced to pay under the duress of the choice to pay, lose her home or euthanise her cat. Failure to provide healthy homes standards information and insurance information
[The tenant] claims the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the RTA.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Under section 13A(2), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement information about whether the premises are insured. If they are not insured the landlord must provide a statement confirming that. If the premises are insured the landlord must provide a statement (i) setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii) informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
The landlord failing to comply with their s13A(1CA) and/or the s13A(2) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
The tenancy agreement provided to and signed by the tenant does not include any of the required healthy homes standards or insurance information. As such, the tenant had no idea when she took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premises, if the premises are insured and any relevant insurance information that informs the tenant of her liability for destruction of or damage to the premises and any erlevant insurance excess.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties both gave evidence that the tenants did not raise any issues or concerns about the landlord’s failure to provide the required healthy homes statements and insurance information in the tenancy agreement, until these proceedings were filed in the Tribunal.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA), s13A(2) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, but that she did so as she was not fully aware of her legislative obligation to do so. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when it comes to compliance with the RTA, but I cannot conclude that the breach was intentional.
The breach was a technical breach that the evidence shows: a.Had a negligible if any effect on the tenant; b.There were no claims made by the tenant that suggested the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards or that tenant would not have taken up the tenancy had she had the healthy homes information; c.It is not in the public interest for the Tribunal’s time to be taken up on technical breaches that have no effect;
As such, while a minor technical breach has occurred, I do not find it just to award the tenant exemplary damages for the breach.
Landlords are however required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I acknowledge this by awarding a compensatory sum of $200.00 as it is in the public interest for the Tribunal to dissuade landlords from failing to educate themselves on their responsibilities to their tenants under the RTA. Failure to keep business records
Section 30(1) of the RTA confirms that every landlord under a tenancy to which this Act applies shall keep or cause to be kept proper business records showing (a) all payments of rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant, sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant under section 29(3); and (b) any amount by way of bond paid by or on behalf of the tenant on or after 1 May 1996.
The tenant says the landlord failed to keep accurate business records showing all payments of rent paid by her and as such she was never quite sure whether the landlord’s claims in relations to rent or water arrears were accurate.
At the hearing the landlord made an assertion the tenant was in $1,178.00 of rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. She could not produce accurate rent records to prove the amount she claimed the tenant owed her.
The tenant disputed the amount of rent owing, saying it was only the last three days of the tenancy that she had not paid rent for. She asked the landlord for rent records to prove the amount owed and says she had also requested rent records throughout her tenancy but never received these.
I required the landlord to compile proper business records in the format accepted by the Tribunal to support her claim for rent arrears.
Post the hearing, the landlord provided a rent summary that the tenant confirmed was an accurate representation of the rent records the tenant has felt it necessary to keep because the landlord failed to do so.
I accepted the rent record the landlord produced as an accurate representation of the rent owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $350.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure she kept accurate business records and could not produce them when requested to do so; b. The tenant is entitled to rely accurate business records being kept by the landlord and to be able to access accurate rent records when she required them to understand what she had paid and what was owed to the landlord at any particular time during the tenancy; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to keep accurate business records and to have them readily available to the tenant and the Tribunal; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay keep accurate business records for the clarification and protection of both parties’ interests.
I find it fair to set the quantum of exemplary damages at the maximum amount for this category of breach because, the landlord failed to keep accurate business records and made claims at the Tribunal for amounts she was not due as a result of her shoddy record keeping. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Order

Crisel Hipolito must pay [the tenant] $6,955.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Crisel Hipolito is also to pay the bond of $1,400.00 to [the tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 June 2024.
The tenants applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 May 2024. ‘
The tenant says the landlord did not keep proper business records and as such she was never quite sure what rent was due and when. Consequently, when at the hearing the landlord made a claim for $1,178.00 rent arrears the tenant disputed she owed that amount saying, that she was up to date with her rent but for the last three days of her tenancy, being 8 to 11 May 2024.
I required the landlord to compile proper business records in the format accepted by the Tribunal to support her claim. Post the hearing, the landlord provided a rent summary that the tenant says is an accurate representation of the rent records she has.
I accept the rent record the landlord has produced is an accurate representation of the rent owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy and award the rent arrears of $428.57 to the landlord.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the glass stove top reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove a hessian bag from the property that she says contained soil.
The tenant says the hessian bag was full of sand and was left at the property by one of the landlord’s contractors and that the tenant did not have anything to do with the bag being brought to or left at the premise. The landlord confirmed she had not looked at the contents of the bag and has assumed it was a sack of soil as she was aware the tenant had purchased soil to try to remedy her concerns about the lawn growing in a patchy formation.
The tenant also refuted that the glass stove top was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. She stated the glass top had some scratch marks on it that were not able to be cleaned away. She confirmed she had thoroughly cleaned the entire premise at the end of the tenancy and that included the stove top.
The landlord confirmed that cleaning to stove top had made no difference to the condition of it and stated that is why the stove top had to be replaced.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims for $100.00 to clean the glass stove top and $20.00 to have the hessian sandbag disposed of.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for these costs accordingly.

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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The glass stove top was scratched so badly it needed to be replaced; b. The walls were damaged at the start of the tenancy when the tenant’s fridge was being moved into the premise by a removal company; c. The vinyl was torn when the tenant’s fridge was moved by the removal company.
The landlord claims the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant should be liable for the costs of repairing and painting the walls, repairing the vinyl and replacing the stove top as she says it was new when the tenancy started.
The tenant accepted liability for the wall damage and the damage to the vinyl flooring. I award the compensation claimed by the landlord for this damage as she has proven the costs she incurred with receipts for the repairs.
The tenant says she did not do anything deliberately or careless that resulted n the scratches to the glass stove top and that the scratches on the photographs provided by the landlord made the scratches look worse than they are in reality. The tenant provided a video of the premise on the day the tenancy ended that proved the glass stove top did not have the significant scratches on it that the landlord claimed.
I am satisfied the tenant has disproved liability for the stove damage and dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation of $700.00 for the stove top replacement. TENANT’S CLAIMS Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant] claims the landlord has harassed her and her wife and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise.
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.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant has provided evidence that the landlord constantly harassed her and her wife for the duration of the tenancy in relation to the undisputed damage caused to the walls by the tenant’s large fridge when the tenant moved in and the lawn that the landlord claims the tenant’s dog ruined.
The tenant says the landlord informed her at the start of the tenancy that she would not repair the wall damaged caused by the tenant’s fridge until the end of the tenancy. The tenant had accepted liability for the cost to repair and repaint the walls where the damage had occurred due to a large fridge being moved into the premise by the tenant. The tenant also confirmed she accepted that the damage would not be repaired until the end of the tenancy as moving the fridge out of the premise could cause further damage.
The tenant says that from a just after her tenancy commenced the landlord constantly accused her of causing patches on the front lawn to die because she said the tenant allowed her dog to urinate on the lawn and the urine burnt the grass. She also reminded the tenant constantly that the tenant was lucky to have been provided a home when she needed it and that she had only been given the tenancy because she was a fellow countryperson from the Philippines and they had a common friend that had vouched for the tenant and her wife.
The tenant says she quickly came to dread the monthly property inspections as the landlord came every second Friday and chastised the tenant and her wife for the wall damage and the alleged damage, they were causing to the small patch of grass out the front of the premise and also continued threatened them that she could end the tenancy if they didn’t comply with her demands. The tenant says that every phone conversation with the landlord consisted of the same allegations being levelled at her and it really upset her and made her feel like the house was not her home and she was walking on broken eggshells all the time.
The tenant stated she was most upset when the landlord told her that a builder the landlord had working at the premise had allegedly said the house smelt like cat poo and the front yard like urine. The tenant says the house was kept immaculate and this was untrue. The tenant claims she spoke to the builder, who denied saying this to the landlord and told the tenant he was professional and would never have said any such thing about anyone’s home that he had worked in. When the tenant confronted the landlord about her comment, she says the landlord became very angry and aggressive with her about her having spoken to the builder.
The tenant provided an email dated 6 March 2023 from the landlord that says “Also, upon inspection of the property, I found grass on my front lawn has died and has a strong smell of animal urine (adjacent neighbours both have green and heathy looking grass that came with the property). You have denied this at time of confrontation and mentioned it was because it had recently flooded in the area. I have responded that I owned many dogs in the past and that’s likely urine that has caused the grass to die. Together with this I have documented over 10 damages on walls including scuff marks and chips. I have decided that it is not to be repaired now and will be repainted and repaired, including the lawn upon the end of tenancy”. This email ends with the line “failure to be agreeable to fair consequences of your actions mentioned above will result to termination of our Tenancy Agreement and issue will be brought to Tenancy Tribunal”. This email confirms that although the tenants accepted liability for the wall damage at the start of the tenancy, 16 December 2022, and the landlord made the decision in December 2022 not to fix the wall damage until after the tenant moved out, she continued to harass the tenant in every communication with her about the wall damage and the grass and made constant threats she would terminate the tenancy if the tenant and her wife did not do as she demanded.
The tenant and her wife say that they did everything they could to look after the property and that they had a professional lawn person come to look at the grass to tell them how to take good care of the lawn. They produced evidence that shows the lawn person told them the foundation for the grass was poor and suggested the only way to get the lawn to grown lush and evenly was to get ready grass laid down. The tenant was quoted $500.00 to do this and decided it was too expensive. She purchased some good topsoil and grass seed and tried to resow the patchy area of the lawn.
The tenant says the landlord just continues to harass her about the walls and the lawn no matter what she did.
On the second inspection in March 2023, the landlord discovered the tenant had an old cat as well as the dog that was listed on the tenancy agreement. The tenant had left a domestic violence situation before the tenancy and had thought she had a home for her old cat. Therefore, she says only sought permission from the landlord to bring the dog, which she got. She says when the person who was to keep the old cat was no longer able to do so, she took the old cat back as the cat just slept all day and never caused any issues. She stated she had no reason to believe the landlord would have an issue with a cat, given that the landlord had given permission to keep a dog, and she forgot to tell the landlord about the additional pet. On finding the old cat in residence, the landlord became very upset. In her 6 March 2023 email to the tenant, she says: “I am writing to you to let you know how utterly disappointed I am with your recent actions that might result to terminating our agreement; see first paragraph of the Tenancy Agreement between Cris Hipolito and[tenant’s name suppressed]. First of all, my property is not just a rental, it is a home I was going to live in but due to change of circumstances, I can no longer go ahead. Among less than 10 serious applicants that all had various cultural and professional backgrounds, I selected you as fellow countryman and out of the goodness of my heart. A mutual friend of ours, “Lynn”, was out on a limb, persuading, assuring me that you’d be the perfect choice. Knowing you needed a place to stay, I did not hesitate. However, at the day of inspection, 2/3/23, I found another pet (cat) which was not disclosed to me during property inquiry, viewing, and contract signing (all done on different dates) which I find uncanny and intentional. Finding out that way was disrespectful and a breach of our contract as I have already allowed your pet dog without rent increase and extra bond at the time of signing. If I knew there was another animal that would be staying in my property, I would not have allowed you to rent my property. In saying this, you have mentioned during my inspection that instead the rent increasing next year to $750.00 (this was due to rent increasing around the area that has similar features and newly built), you offered to pay the $750.00 now to ease my disappointment in finding out about your pet cat. This is to be imposed on the next due rent which is 14/3/23. An additional, $500.00 as a one-off payment due to non-disclosure of an additional pet in the property, that I otherwise would not have allowed. Computation is $50.00 per week since you started renting from me 20/12/22 which equates to $500.00. As well as the remaining water bill that I have paid since you moved in has a balance of $150.72, all receipts were sent to you. I would like both $500.00 and $150.72 to be settled in my bank account by Friday 10/3/23. Also, upon inspection of the property, I found grass on my front lawn has died and has a strong smell of animal urine (adjacent neighbours both have green and heathy looking grass that came with the property). You have denied this at time of confrontation and mentioned it was because it had recently flooded in the area. I have responded that I owned many dogs in the past and that’s likely urine that has caused the grass to die. Together with this I have documented over 10 damages on walls including scuff marks and chips. I have decided that it is not to be repaired now and will be repainted and repaired, including the lawn upon the end of tenancy. Failure to be agreeable to fair consequences of your actions mentioned above will result to termination of our Tenancy Agreement and issue will be brought to Tenancy Tribunal”.
This email is threatening and caused the tenant and her wife significant distress. They had not deliberately withheld the information about the cat and had not had it at the premises from the beginning of the tenancy. They simply forgot to talk to her when they a few months into the tenancy they had to suddenly take the cat back that they thought they had rehomed. They say it happened fast and they had no reason to believe having an old cat that mostly slept all day would be so upsetting to the landlord. It was passed the age of scratching anything or causing any damage to the house.
The tenants say the landlord place her and her wife under duress by telling them the cat had to go or they had to pay a $500 pet bond and have their rent increased immediately. They felt they had no other option but to agree as they had nowhere else for the cat to go and did not want to have to euthanise it.
The tenant says from this time on the landlord constantly harassed her and her wife about animal smells in the house, the patches on the grass and the wall damage in the majority of text, phone call and email communication.
The tenant had her brother some to visit for a while from the Philippines and she says the landlord harassed her about her having to many people staying at the house and told her she couldn’t have her brother live there. The tenant says she explained her brother was visiting and not living there and that the tenancy agreement stated that there could be a maximum of 4 occupants. The landlord she says replied that the tenant also had a cat and a dog and that the landlord counted these as people. The tenant was left feeling like the landlord would not let her live in peace in the house and that she had left a domestic violence situation and swapped it for a situation where she was being subjected to harassment all the time that was causing her significant stress and making her unwell.
The tenant also stated that even when a property inspection went well, the landlord would follow up with calls and text every couple of weeks bringing up the cat, the wall damage and the lawn and how they had vandalised her property. This constant harassment, the tenant says, was endless and led to her and her wife eventually having to move out.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a.The landlord engaged in a pattern of behaviour she knew was causing the tenant and her wife trouble, worry and distress and that they were becoming worn down by her constant accusations and inability to raise and resolve something and then let it go. She felt the continual need to reiterate that she had the power to terminate the tenancy for things that had been discussed and resolved when she knew the tenant had been traumatised and needed to have a safe space to recover from the domestic violence she had suffered; b.The tenant and her wife suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying to have as a safe haven from duress because of the landlord’s continual harassment of her ; c.It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying to have as a safe haven from duress; and d.It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their quiet enjoyment obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Failure to lodge the bond
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord received the tenant’s bond around 16 December 2022 when the tenancy started. The tenant discovered when she made her application to the Tribunal that landlord had never lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed the failure to lodge the bond with 23 days of receiving payment of it was a simple oversight. Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and to comply with their legal obligations. I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after his receipt of it.
The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages because: a.The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after 16 December 2022, and still did not lodge it by 14 February 2024, when the tenant brought the breach to her attention in her application to the Tribunal. Further, the landlord had still had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre at the date of the hearing, being 21 June 2024 (554 days after receiving the bond from the tenant); b.The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting her bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenants’ benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants’ money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 18 months, and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenant’s knowledge of who held her bond. The tenant only became aware of the breach when she called the Bond Centre to find out how to have the bond released at the end of her tenancy. That was the first, she knew that the bond had never been lodged; c.It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d.it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests. e.I find it fair to set the quantum of exemplary damages at the maximum amount for this category of breach because, the landlord failed to lodge the bond for 18 months and did not lodge it as soon as the tenant brought the breach to her attention.

Was the rent increased unlawfully?

The tenant provided the 6 March 2023 email, outlined at paragraph [41] above in which the landlord states the tenant agrees to a rent increase of $50.00 per week to take effect from 14 March 2023.
Section 24(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms: a.The landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and b.That notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and c.The day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date on which that notice is given; and d.The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 16 December 2022. The rent increase requested by the landlord was less than 12 months after the tenancy commenced and he did not provide the tenant with 60 days’ notice of the rent increase.
The landlord stated she had requested the increase to offset her disappointment at finding out on 6 March 2023 that the tenant had a cat at the premise that the landlord did not know about previously. Further, she claimed the tenant came up with the idea of paying more rent, that it was the tenant’s idea and that an agreement between the parties to increase the rent so the tenant could keep the cat was lawful as allowing the tenant to keep the cat she says is a material benefit that warrants an increase in rent.
Section 28 of the RTA confirms the landlord and the tenant may agree to increase the rent if the landlord has, with the consent of the tenant: a.made substantial improvements to the premises (not being general or necessary repairs) that increase the value of the premises and constitute a material benefit to the tenant: b.increased or improved the facilities or services (other than general or necessary repairs) provided for the tenant: c.agreed to a variation in the terms of the tenancy that benefits the tenant.
The tenant and her wife gave evidence that they were shocked about the landlord’s reaction to the cat as she had been agreeable to them having a dog, had not charged them a higher rent or a pet bond and had not led them to believe she was against animals being housed at the premise. Further, the tenant had been through a lot and when the new home for the cat didn’t work out she happily took the cat back as had been unable to find it another home. Having already had permission to keep a dog, she did not think the landlord would insist keeping the cat would lead to an increase in rent and the payment of a lump sum bond/penalty payment.
The tenant and her wife gave evidence they did not come up with the idea of paying more rent, nor did they agree to the rent increase without being put under extreme duress of the landlord’s ultimatum to pay the increase and pet bond/penalty payment or she would terminate the tenancy if they did not. The other alternative the tenant says she was given, was to “get rid of the cat”.
I am satisfied the tenant did not agree to the rent increase and accept that she was threatened into accepting the landlord’s demand for an immediate $50.00 per week increase from 16 March 2023 and a lump sum penalty payment/pet bond of $500.00 to be paid by 10 March 2023.
I award the tenant compensation for the additional $50.00 a week she was required to pay from 16 March 2023 to 11 May 2024 (60 weeks and 4 days), being $3,028.57.
At first it was unclear to me whether this $500.00 pet bond/penalty payment was an extension of the unlawful rent increase of a requirement for a pet bond. I note that if this was a demand for a pet bond, a landlord may not require a tenant to provide the landlord with any form of security to secure any payment or performance arising out of, or in connection with, the tenancy, except for the bond of 4 weeks provided for under s18 of the RTA and set out in the tenancy agreement. See section 18A(1) of the RTA
After considering all the evidence, I find the pet bond/penalty was an extension of the unlawful rent increase. Accordingly, I also award the tenant compensation for the $500.00 pet bond/penalty payment she was forced to pay under the duress of the choice to pay, lose her home or euthanise her cat. Failure to provide healthy homes standards information and insurance information
[The tenant] claims the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the RTA.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Under section 13A(2), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement information about whether the premises are insured. If they are not insured the landlord must provide a statement confirming that. If the premises are insured the landlord must provide a statement (i) setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii) informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
The landlord failing to comply with their s13A(1CA) and/or the s13A(2) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
The tenancy agreement provided to and signed by the tenant does not include any of the required healthy homes standards or insurance information. As such, the tenant had no idea when she took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premises, if the premises are insured and any relevant insurance information that informs the tenant of her liability for destruction of or damage to the premises and any erlevant insurance excess.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties both gave evidence that the tenants did not raise any issues or concerns about the landlord’s failure to provide the required healthy homes statements and insurance information in the tenancy agreement, until these proceedings were filed in the Tribunal.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA), s13A(2) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, but that she did so as she was not fully aware of her legislative obligation to do so. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when it comes to compliance with the RTA, but I cannot conclude that the breach was intentional.
The breach was a technical breach that the evidence shows: a.Had a negligible if any effect on the tenant; b.There were no claims made by the tenant that suggested the premises did not meet the healthy homes standards or that tenant would not have taken up the tenancy had she had the healthy homes information; c.It is not in the public interest for the Tribunal’s time to be taken up on technical breaches that have no effect;
As such, while a minor technical breach has occurred, I do not find it just to award the tenant exemplary damages for the breach.
Landlords are however required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I acknowledge this by awarding a compensatory sum of $200.00 as it is in the public interest for the Tribunal to dissuade landlords from failing to educate themselves on their responsibilities to their tenants under the RTA. Failure to keep business records
Section 30(1) of the RTA confirms that every landlord under a tenancy to which this Act applies shall keep or cause to be kept proper business records showing (a) all payments of rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant, sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant under section 29(3); and (b) any amount by way of bond paid by or on behalf of the tenant on or after 1 May 1996.
The tenant says the landlord failed to keep accurate business records showing all payments of rent paid by her and as such she was never quite sure whether the landlord’s claims in relations to rent or water arrears were accurate.
At the hearing the landlord made an assertion the tenant was in $1,178.00 of rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. She could not produce accurate rent records to prove the amount she claimed the tenant owed her.
The tenant disputed the amount of rent owing, saying it was only the last three days of the tenancy that she had not paid rent for. She asked the landlord for rent records to prove the amount owed and says she had also requested rent records throughout her tenancy but never received these.
I required the landlord to compile proper business records in the format accepted by the Tribunal to support her claim for rent arrears.
Post the hearing, the landlord provided a rent summary that the tenant confirmed was an accurate representation of the rent records the tenant has felt it necessary to keep because the landlord failed to do so.
I accepted the rent record the landlord produced as an accurate representation of the rent owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $350.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure she kept accurate business records and could not produce them when requested to do so; b. The tenant is entitled to rely accurate business records being kept by the landlord and to be able to access accurate rent records when she required them to understand what she had paid and what was owed to the landlord at any particular time during the tenancy; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to keep accurate business records and to have them readily available to the tenant and the Tribunal; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay keep accurate business records for the clarification and protection of both parties’ interests.
I find it fair to set the quantum of exemplary damages at the maximum amount for this category of breach because, the landlord failed to keep accurate business records and made claims at the Tribunal for amounts she was not due as a result of her shoddy record keeping. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808822 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808822 — Exemplary damages

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?

Was the rent increased unlawfully?

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?

Was the rent increased unlawfully?