What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4827482 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4827482?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Fixed Water Charges: $128.91 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4827482?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4827482?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10779899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4827482 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4827482?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Fixed Water Charges: $128.91 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4827482?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4827482?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10779899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 8, 327 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4827482 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4827482 — net $1,573.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to internal doors	$50.00		Repairs to internal doors
Replacement curtains	$86.25		Replacement curtains
Repairs to kitchen wall	$230.00		Repairs to kitchen wall
Bond refund (held by landlord		$1,340.00	Bond refund (held by landlord
Exemplary damages - failure to lodge bond		$250.00	Exemplary damages - failure to lodge bond
Compensation - breach of Healthy Home Standards		$200.00	Compensation - breach of Healthy Home Standards
Fixed water charges		$128.91	Fixed water charges
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$366.25	$1,939.35
Net award		$1,573.10
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,573.10

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4827482 — net $1,573.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to internal doors	$50.00		Repairs to internal doors
Replacement curtains	$86.25		Replacement curtains
Repairs to kitchen wall	$230.00		Repairs to kitchen wall
Bond refund (held by landlord		$1,340.00	Bond refund (held by landlord
Exemplary damages - failure to lodge bond		$250.00	Exemplary damages - failure to lodge bond
Compensation - breach of Healthy Home Standards		$200.00	Compensation - breach of Healthy Home Standards
Fixed water charges		$128.91	Fixed water charges
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$366.25	$1,939.35
Net award		$1,573.10
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,573.10

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The landlord]’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay Qingxin Shu $1,573.10 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings before me on 26 March 2024 and 22 August 2024.
The first hearing was held to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). On 10 April 2024 the Tribunal held that the parties had entered into a residential tenancy agreement and there was jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s application. Background
The parties signed a flat/house sharing agreement for a fixed term which started on 17 February 2023 and ended on 4 February 2024.
The agreement could be terminated by the landlord giving 14 days’ notice in writing. The flatmates were identified as the tenant and another person.
The rent was $600.00 per week with a bond of $2,400.00. The bond was not lodged with the bond centre. The tenant paid $1,340.00 towards the bond and the other tenant paid $1,060.00.
The property was described in a February 2023 advertisement as being a sunny and warm 2-bedroom, 1-living room, 1-bathroom unit with a garden and parking space. There was also a kitchen. The premises were provided fully furnished.
The property agent, who is the second-named landlord, explained that she found tenants for the landlord, but did not manage the tenancy. The agent explained that the landlord and the tenants would share water, power, and internet costs. The agent said she explained to the tenant that the landlord would retain use of one room as an office, and the kitchen and bathroom would be shared.
The landlord stated that she purchased the property to be close to her mother who lived in another unit in the same building. She always made it clear that the rental agreement was a house/flat-sharing agreement. This had been the arrangement with previous flatmates for the past 10 years. Bond
It was not disputed that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The essence of the landlord's response was that she thought there was no need to lodge the bond, because there was a flat-share agreement and not a tenancy. I accept that the landlord genuinely believed this. Her view was supported by the agent’s advice that a flat-share arrangement was appropriate, given the extent of sharing between the landlord and the tenants.
The Tribunal had to carefully analyse the living arrangements to ascertain whether section 5(1)(n) of the Act applied, and there is room for reasonable disagreement about the Tribunal’s conclusion. If the landlord had been living at the premises, she probably would have been right to view the arrangement as flat sharing. At the same time, the requirement to lodge the bond is a fundamental obligation under the Act, designed to protect tenants’ money. The tenant paid $1,340.00 of the bond. It has not been refunded and the landlord has not applied for payment of the bond.
Ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is not a complete excuse. The landlord received the bond but did not comply with her obligation to lodge it with the Bond Centre. The factors discussed above provide significant mitigation. The landlord did not deliberately set out to breach the law and, as will be discussed below, was reasonably diligent in seeking to ensure the premises met applicable standards when she thought they applied.
On the other hand, the tenant (who is now overseas) has had the anxiety of not knowing if her bond would be refunded. The public interest requires the Tribunal to uphold landlords’ fundamental obligation to lodge bonds so that, at the end of a tenancy, they are not improperly withheld. Having regard to the factors in section 109(3) of the Act, I consider it would be just to award exemplary damages at a low level. I award $250.00.
The tenant also complained that she had been misled into signing a flat/house sharing agreement instead of a tenancy agreement.
Because of the landlord’s misunderstanding, the flat/house sharing agreement did not contain all the information required to be included in tenancy agreements by section 13A of the Act. However, for the reasons given above, I do not consider it would be just to award additional exemplary damages. Heating
The tenant complained that there was no heating in the premises until 8 February 2024, when a panel wall heater was installed in the kitchen. The tenant said the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
Looking at the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, the Healthy Homes Standards would have applied 120 days (about 4 months) after commencement of the tenancy.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more “qualifying heaters”, with a capacity to heat the living room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater is and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable. The heating standard requires that heaters have a minimum heating capacity.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes Standards Report for the unit purchased for her mother. Both units were assessed on 25 March 2022. In a signed statement dated 17 August 2024, the assessor said that both units complied with the standards at that time, apart from fixed heating in the main living space. The assessor said the premises continued to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards between 2022 and 2024 to the same extent. The premises were checked again on 7 February 2024, and the next day the landlord installed a heat pump in the kitchen and sent a photograph to the assessor. The Healthy Homes Standards Report for the tenancy address, issued in March 2024, stated that the property now had a heat pump in “the main living space” (in this case, the kitchen).
The tenant queried the professionalism of the assessor, given the report wrongly stated that it reflected the condition of the property on the day of the assessment. The tenant also questioned the validity of the assessor’s statement that both premises were equally compliant. The unit purchased by the landlord for her mother also failed the ventilation standard, because it did not have kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. The tenant said that the landlord only installed an exhaust fan in the bathroom in February 2024.
The landlord said she always intended to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, and she also provided 2 portable heaters for the tenants to use. The tenant denied being aware of any portable heaters and said that she lived at the tenancy address for 11 months without compliance with the heating standard. She had to rely on duvets and heated blankets to stay warm.
The premises had to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards from about July 2023. On the face of the Healthy Homes Standards Report and the assessor’s statement, they complied with all the standards apart from the heating standard. It is relevant that the landlord (erroneously) believed the premises did not need to comply because there was a flat/house sharing agreement.
The evidence does not seem to reveal any complaint from the tenant in the various WeChat messages that the premises were cold. My impression during the hearing was that the tenant was not unduly troubled by the lack of heating during the tenancy. It is possible that the lack of a heater contributed to the mould problem in the kitchen, further discussed below, although I consider this probably had more to do with a lack of ventilation.
I award damages of $200.00 to acknowledge that the premises were non- compliant with the heating standard during much of the tenancy. This likely contributed to the discomfort the tenant experienced between July and September 2023. Mould
A landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair (section 45 of the Act). Tenants have an obligation to keep premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy (section 40 of the Act).
The tenant complained of mould that started in July 2023 in the kitchen and spread to her bedroom. The tenant said there were also black stains in the bathroom although she ventilated the bathroom and her bedroom. The tenant suggested that there might be a leak in the ceiling and noted that the unit was quite damp.
In written submissions after the hearing the tenant said she endured the winter of 2023 in a cold and damp environment, and she associated this with a serious lung condition diagnosed shortly following her return overseas. The tenant said the house developed severe mould due to a lack of heating and inadequate ventilation. Photographs dated 19 September 2023 show mould on the kitchen and bathroom ceilings, worst in the kitchen.
On 19 September 2023 the landlord requested that the tenant clean the mould and keep it clean to avoid problems when the tenancy ended. The tenant claimed a refund of $600.00 the tenants paid to a cleaning company who attended on 24 September 2023 (the tenant paid half of this amount). The tenant noted that this company cleaned throughout the premises, including the curtains.
The landlord referred to the Healthy Homes Standards Report which confirmed there was a kitchen rangehood and a bathroom extractor fan. There were also windows or mechanical ventilation in all living arears. The tenant accepted there was a rangehood.
In an email dated 18 March 2024, in the context of the landlord’s claims for damage to the premises, the landlord stated that the tenant had “...persisted in monopolising the kitchen space with doors and windows firmly shut. The moistures appeared on walls and the ceiling because of lacking air circulation”. The landlord said that, when a replacement flatmate arrived in September 2023, she made it clear that the rangehood must be used and kitchen windows left open while cooking. Since then, there had been no new mould in the kitchen area.
I am not satisfied that there was a failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable condition or that there was a breach of the Healthy Homes ventilation standard. The premises had an extraction fan in the kitchen and several windows. There was sufficient time before the end of the tenancy for mould to reappear on part of the curtain in the tenant’s bedroom, despite earlier cleaning. There is no evidence suggesting that the mould was caused by leaks or lack of maintenance.
An equally likely cause of the mould issue (which did not reoccur after September 2023) is that the kitchen was not sufficiently ventilated, although the tenant explained that she would open the windows and the interior door when cooking. Tenants have an obligation to keep premises reasonably clean, and ultimately it seems to have been the landlord who requested that something be done about the build-up of mould. I decline to award the cost of cleaning the ceilings. Water
The tenant claimed $257.82 as reimbursement for fixed water charges. The landlord said it was agreed that she would pay $20.00 towards power and internet each month and the tenants would pay the rest. It appears that the tenants were paying the fixed water charges as well as the charges for water consumption.
Under section 39 of the Act, the tenant pays for the water they use, and the landlord pays outgoings that are incurred whether the premises are occupied or not, in this case the fixed water charges. The tenant said she paid half the water bills. I award compensation for the fixed water charges paid by the tenant in the sum of $128.91. Damage
The landlord claimed compensation for damage from the tenant. There was no cross-application against the bond as there should have been (section 22B(2) of the Act).
The landlord’s claims were itemised in an email dated 18 March 2024. They were addressed by the parties’ written submissions and discussed at the hearing. In the interests of bringing finality to this matter I have considered these claims.
The landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than “fair wear and tear”. This means damage during ordinary use.
The landlord said there was damage to the tenant’s bedroom door caused by using “inappropriate hangars”. The tenant said the landlord told her to remove them. There is a photograph of paint damage to a door which appears to show a clothes hangar has been removed leaving a hangar next to it. The tenant said that this was also later removed in February 2024 at the landlord’s request, causing slight paint damage. The landlord provided a photograph of the tenant’s bedroom door showing some paint peeling next to a “no smoking” sign. The tenant said the paint was already peeling and the surface was worn.
Tenants are liable for damage they cause to premises when they remove fixtures (section 42 of the Act). While the damage has probably been caused by the tenant, possibly as instructed by the landlord, it is to a small area and does not look costly to fix. An invoice from [Building company] dated 4 March 2024 included $300.00 plus GST for repairing two interior doors. The tenant provided a quote, based on the photographs, indicating that the door and the kitchen cabinet could be fixed for $150.00 plus GST. I award nominal damages of $50.00 for damage to the internal doors.
The landlord said there was mould on the window curtain in the tenant’s room at the end of the tenancy, and no other curtains were mouldy. This was supported by a photograph. Part of the curtain had been left behind the bed headboard and got damp. The tenant said she should not be responsible for this cost because the property was not compliant with the heating and ventilation standards.
The property was cleaned in September 2023, and this resolved the mould problem. I am not satisfied that a partly mouldy curtain was due to a failure to meet the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord claimed $207.00 for replacement curtains. The curtains themselves only cost $75.00 plus GST. The rest of the invoice is for call out and service fees. I award $86.25 for the replacement curtain.
The landlord claimed a total of $2,783.00 for damage in the kitchen. This included stains and mould on the kitchen walls and ceiling; damage to the surface of the dining table; damage to the surface of a kitchen cabinet; and replacing a hinge.
The landlord said the tenant had put wet bowls into the cabinet causing water damage. There was a photograph taken in September 2023 showing minor damage. Water damage could be caused over time by normal use, with the inevitability that some utensils may not be completely dry when they are put away. I find that this is fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided photographs of the kitchen ceiling with the comment that there was mould damage to the timber. The file also contains two photographs showing several marks on the wall next to the heat pump and window. There is an invoice for repairing mould damage to the kitchen ceiling in the sum of $1,820.00 plus GST and for repairs and painting to the kitchen walls for $700.00 plus GST.
The ceiling does not look badly affected by mould. It is unclear why the ceiling mould could not have been cleaned. The photographs show several areas of staining or marks on the walls. Both parties seemed to accept that the wall damage was caused by the tenant putting tape there for a birthday party. The tenant obtained a quote to repair the wall for $200.00 plus GST. This reflects the minor nature of the visible damage. I award $230.00 for the wall and decline to award compensation for the ceiling.
The landlord claimed $120.00 plus GST for damage to a dining table caused by a steam-cooker. I am unable to identify a photograph of the damage. I decline to award compensation.
The landlord claimed $50.00 plus GST for a bathroom cabinet hinge replacement. There is a close-up photograph of a hinge inside a cabinet, which does not look damaged. I find that any need for a replacement was fair wear and tear.
I note that the tenant complained about how the end of the tenancy was handled by the landlord, claiming that the landlord increased the cost of repairs by way of retaliation and threatened to call the Police and take her to Court.
There are WeChat messages dated 29 February 2024 where the landlord appears to talk about the difference between intentional and careless damage but indicates that the dispute about liability for repairs would be resolved in the “ordinary” i.e., Civil Courts. I do not view the comments allegedly made as threatening, the tenancy had ended by this time, and I am not satisfied that the landlord harassed the tenant. Costs and Name Suppression
The tenant’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.
The landlord and tenant requested name suppression. Neither party has been “wholly or substantially” successful. I decline to grant suppression.
There is no order against the agent, who was not involved in the management of the tenancy. I grant suppression to the agent.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4827482 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 327 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4827482 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 327 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

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