What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819078 about?

The tribunal order states: Lily Li must pay [The tenant/s] $14,935.44 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4819078?

Compensation: Loss of amenity - wash…: $315.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund Of Bond: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement Of Rent: $13,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819078?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10308182-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819078 about?

The tribunal order states: Lily Li must pay [The tenant/s] $14,935.44 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4819078?

Compensation: Loss of amenity - wash…: $315.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund Of Bond: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement Of Rent: $13,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819078?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10308182-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Exmouth Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4819078 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819078 — net $14,935.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement of rent	$13,000.00	Reimbursement of rent
Compensation: Refund of bond	$1,350.00	Refund of bond
Compensation: Loss of amenity - washing machine	$315.00	Loss of amenity - washing machine
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$250.00	Bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,935.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,935.44

Order

Lily Li must pay [The tenant/s] $14,935.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing.
The tenancy was for a fixed term beginning on 21 April 2023 and ending on 21 April 2024.
The tenant applied for a work order, to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for compensation and exemplary damages, and for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards. Fixed term tenancy
As the fixed term tenancy has ended an order to be released from the fixed term tenancy is no longer necessary and that claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Work order
In addition, a work order to fix the washing machine is no longer required given that the tenancy has ended. However, the tenant was without a washing machine for seven and a half weeks. The tenant advised the landlord that the washing machine was not working on 7 February 2024. The washing machine was not fixed before the tenancy ended. I have awarded compensation for loss of amenity at the rate of $30.00 per week for the washing machine. Unlawful residential tenancy
The premises consist of a small self-contained sleep out with a bedroom, living room, bathroom and kitchenette. When the tenancy began there was a second smaller sleepout on the property, in addition to the main house at the front of the section.
On 11 July 2023 a search warrant was executed by Auckland Council workers accompanied by the Police. The warrant was issued pursuant to the Resource Management Act. The warrant provided authorisation to enter and search the address (including both minor dwellings and the main house). When the search warrant was executed, the tenant was advised that the sleep out was an unlawful dwelling. She has been advised that the Council are still investigating in relation to the sleep out although the other smaller sleep out was demolished in December 2023.
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
If the landlord has applied for termination for rent arrears, and the Tribunal declares the residential tenancy to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order termination, but it is not required to do so. See section 78A(3)(b) RTA.
The tenant obtained a builder’s report from Honeycomb Construction Ltd following an inspection on 16 April 2024. The report concludes that some of the building of the premises was not built to code and that water is pooling by the shower area under the building. Also, it appears that black mould is growing underneath by the shower area. The report notes that the carpet smells slightly damp with elevated moisture levels in several areas. In conclusion the report noted high risk issues were foundations, cladding, joinery, internal moisture and building consent.
It is in the public interest that when a landlord offers premises for a residential tenancy that they take all steps to ensure that those premises are lawful. Adherence to the Building Codes is important as those codes set out minimum standards with such things as fire prevention and smoke alarms, insulation, ventilation, structural strength and integrity, escape routes for fire and sanitation.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with “all requirements of the buildings, health and safety so far as they apply to the premises”.
Section 45(1)(bb) states that the landlord shall comply with the healthy homes standards. In these premises there are no smoke alarms, no heating, no kitchen or bathroom ventilation and no underfloor heating or moisture barrier. There is no evidence that the remaining standards are compliant, but they have not been assessed. The tenant had asked the landlord for information related to Healthy homes compliance but was given no information.
I am satisfied on the evidence presented that the landlord has not complied with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety which is a breach of section 45(1)(bb) and (c) RTA and therefore the premises are unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes.
Where it finds unlawful residential premises section 78A(4) applies. Section 78A(4) states; The Tribunal may order the landlord to pay the tenant – (i)The whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful premises; or (ii)An amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct.
I consider that section 78A(4)(a)(ii) should apply to this case because applying section 78A(4)(a)(i) would be unfair to the landlord as the tenant has had some amenity of living at the property. The tenant lived there for twelve months.
At this point I must carefully weigh what amount of rent it is fair to deduct. Other than taking into account the nature of the premises, “the special circumstances” that I must have regard to are not stated within the RTA. However other Tribunal decisions have weighed the following factors: a.The landlord’s motivation for renting the property, and their conduct during the tenancy. b. The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim, and the length of time he lived in the property. c. The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. d. The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. e. The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. f. Any other breaches by the landlord. g. Any detriment or loss the tenant suffered. h. The purpose of s 78A in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. i. The public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies. j.Any other compensation or exemplary damages that are ordered.
The tenant stayed at the tenancy for 52 weeks and paid weekly rent of $450.00. After taking account of the evidence and the circumstances I consider that the tenant should be refunded $250.00 per week for the period of the tenancy. Specific factors in determining this award are: • safety and health concerns for the tenant in the premises including the lack of smoke alarms and heating; • the presence of damp and mould as identified in the builder’s report; • the tenant’s health issues while living at the premises; • the stress to the tenant of the Auckland Council and Police attending at the premises and the demolition of the other minor dwelling. Bond
[The tenant/s] 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 did not lodge the bond and has not returned the bond to the tenant now that the tenancy has ended. I find they have 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 tenant has not had the benefit of the bond being returned to her. If the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre, it could be released to the tenant with this order. Instead, the tenant will likely need to pursue enforcement of this order to get her bond money back. The landlord has intentionally retained the bond money instead of lodging it. It is in the public interest for bond money to be lodged.
I award exemplary damages of $250.00 in relation to failure to lodge the bond which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819078 — net $14,935.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement of rent	$13,000.00	Reimbursement of rent
Compensation: Refund of bond	$1,350.00	Refund of bond
Compensation: Loss of amenity - washing machine	$315.00	Loss of amenity - washing machine
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$250.00	Bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,935.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,935.44

Order

Lily Li must pay [The tenant/s] $14,935.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing.
The tenancy was for a fixed term beginning on 21 April 2023 and ending on 21 April 2024.
The tenant applied for a work order, to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for compensation and exemplary damages, and for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards. Fixed term tenancy
As the fixed term tenancy has ended an order to be released from the fixed term tenancy is no longer necessary and that claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Work order
In addition, a work order to fix the washing machine is no longer required given that the tenancy has ended. However, the tenant was without a washing machine for seven and a half weeks. The tenant advised the landlord that the washing machine was not working on 7 February 2024. The washing machine was not fixed before the tenancy ended. I have awarded compensation for loss of amenity at the rate of $30.00 per week for the washing machine. Unlawful residential tenancy
The premises consist of a small self-contained sleep out with a bedroom, living room, bathroom and kitchenette. When the tenancy began there was a second smaller sleepout on the property, in addition to the main house at the front of the section.
On 11 July 2023 a search warrant was executed by Auckland Council workers accompanied by the Police. The warrant was issued pursuant to the Resource Management Act. The warrant provided authorisation to enter and search the address (including both minor dwellings and the main house). When the search warrant was executed, the tenant was advised that the sleep out was an unlawful dwelling. She has been advised that the Council are still investigating in relation to the sleep out although the other smaller sleep out was demolished in December 2023.
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
If the landlord has applied for termination for rent arrears, and the Tribunal declares the residential tenancy to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order termination, but it is not required to do so. See section 78A(3)(b) RTA.
The tenant obtained a builder’s report from Honeycomb Construction Ltd following an inspection on 16 April 2024. The report concludes that some of the building of the premises was not built to code and that water is pooling by the shower area under the building. Also, it appears that black mould is growing underneath by the shower area. The report notes that the carpet smells slightly damp with elevated moisture levels in several areas. In conclusion the report noted high risk issues were foundations, cladding, joinery, internal moisture and building consent.
It is in the public interest that when a landlord offers premises for a residential tenancy that they take all steps to ensure that those premises are lawful. Adherence to the Building Codes is important as those codes set out minimum standards with such things as fire prevention and smoke alarms, insulation, ventilation, structural strength and integrity, escape routes for fire and sanitation.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with “all requirements of the buildings, health and safety so far as they apply to the premises”.
Section 45(1)(bb) states that the landlord shall comply with the healthy homes standards. In these premises there are no smoke alarms, no heating, no kitchen or bathroom ventilation and no underfloor heating or moisture barrier. There is no evidence that the remaining standards are compliant, but they have not been assessed. The tenant had asked the landlord for information related to Healthy homes compliance but was given no information.
I am satisfied on the evidence presented that the landlord has not complied with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety which is a breach of section 45(1)(bb) and (c) RTA and therefore the premises are unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes.
Where it finds unlawful residential premises section 78A(4) applies. Section 78A(4) states; The Tribunal may order the landlord to pay the tenant – (i)The whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful premises; or (ii)An amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct.
I consider that section 78A(4)(a)(ii) should apply to this case because applying section 78A(4)(a)(i) would be unfair to the landlord as the tenant has had some amenity of living at the property. The tenant lived there for twelve months.
At this point I must carefully weigh what amount of rent it is fair to deduct. Other than taking into account the nature of the premises, “the special circumstances” that I must have regard to are not stated within the RTA. However other Tribunal decisions have weighed the following factors: a.The landlord’s motivation for renting the property, and their conduct during the tenancy. b. The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim, and the length of time he lived in the property. c. The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. d. The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. e. The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. f. Any other breaches by the landlord. g. Any detriment or loss the tenant suffered. h. The purpose of s 78A in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. i. The public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies. j.Any other compensation or exemplary damages that are ordered.
The tenant stayed at the tenancy for 52 weeks and paid weekly rent of $450.00. After taking account of the evidence and the circumstances I consider that the tenant should be refunded $250.00 per week for the period of the tenancy. Specific factors in determining this award are: • safety and health concerns for the tenant in the premises including the lack of smoke alarms and heating; • the presence of damp and mould as identified in the builder’s report; • the tenant’s health issues while living at the premises; • the stress to the tenant of the Auckland Council and Police attending at the premises and the demolition of the other minor dwelling. Bond
[The tenant/s] 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 did not lodge the bond and has not returned the bond to the tenant now that the tenancy has ended. I find they have 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 tenant has not had the benefit of the bond being returned to her. If the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre, it could be released to the tenant with this order. Instead, the tenant will likely need to pursue enforcement of this order to get her bond money back. The landlord has intentionally retained the bond money instead of lodging it. It is in the public interest for bond money to be lodged.
I award exemplary damages of $250.00 in relation to failure to lodge the bond which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819078 — Exemplary damages at 12 Exmouth Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819078 — Exemplary damages at 12 Exmouth Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions