What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4836301 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant] $1,500.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4836301?

Cleaning: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Metal Kitchen Handles X3: $71.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836301?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10873134-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4836301 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant] $1,500.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4836301?

Cleaning: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Metal Kitchen Handles X3: $71.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836301?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10873134-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4836301 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4836301 — net $1,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: replace metal kitchen handles x3	$71.14		Repairs: replace metal kitchen handles x3
Repairs: Repair damage to wall paint from cleaning	$862.50		Repairs: Repair damage to wall paint from cleaning
Cleaning	$184.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal	$264.50		Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge and receipt		$1,500.00	Failure to lodge and receipt
Remainder of the bond to be refunded to the tenant		$1,382.14	Remainder of the bond to be refunded to the tenant
Total award	$1,382.14	$2,882.14
Net award		$1,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,500.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant] $1,500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

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 tenant gave evidence that she took great care to clean the premises and considered them to be reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. She says she cleaned for 10 hours and hired a rug doctor to clean the carpets.
The landlord produced photographs that showed the kitchen sink had dye residue in it, there were dead flies and fly poop in the kitchen drawers, there was hair and dirt in bedroom drawers, the bathroom and kitchen tile grouting was dirty, there were oil stains in the kitchen, the rangehood filters required cleaning, the washing machine bowl required cleaning and there was mould in the silicone around the windows.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
The landlord’s photographs show that while the majority of the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, there were some areas of the premise that were not.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning costs is upheld as it has produced compelling evidence proving its claim and because the tenants have not provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost. I am satisfied the premise was not at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A large number of internal walls had damage to the paint from where the tenant had tried to clean marks. The matt paint was damaged and needed to be sanded and repainted to repair the damage. I accept the tenant did not cause this damage intentionally but that she damaged the paint through her careless use of cleaning products on matt paint walls, after her husband had unsuccessfully tried to repaint the walls with the wrong type of paint; and b. A number of the new metal kitchen drawer handles were oxidised, the landlord says from sauces being spilled on them, and the three worse handles needed to be replaced. The tenant says this was naturally occurring tarnish that could have been cleaned off and was fair wear and tear. I do not agree. New kitchen handles should not have oxidised in the 5-month tenancy and I accept they only did so as a result of the careless acts or omissions of the tenant.
I am satisfied the damage done to the walls and the kitchen handles is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. TENANT’S CLAIMS Failure to lodge bond
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and did not provide her with a receipt the bond.
Section 19(1)(a) of the RTA requires a landlord to give the tenant a written receipt, signed by the landlord, showing: (i) the address of the premises to which the payment relates; and (ii) the amount and nature of the payment; and (iii) the date of the payment; and (iv) the name of the tenant.
Section 19(1)(b) of the RTA requires the landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching these obligations 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 with the Bond Centre for the 339 days it has been from the start of the tenancy on 22 October 2023 and today.
The landlord confirmed he became aware of this obligation when the tenant lodged her application with the Tribunal on 13 March 2024, but he still failed to lodge the bond even after he discovered he had committed an illegal act by holding on to the bond himself. The landlord has had over 6 months since the date the application was lodge to secure the tenant’s bond by submitting it to the Bond Centre, but he did not.
The landlord says he was not aware of the requirement to lodge the bond.
The landlord also confirmed that he had not issued the tenant with a receipt for the $2,200.00 bond she paid to him.
I find the landlord has committed two unlawful acts.
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.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants. 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 and that he was required to issue a receipt.
The landlord could have sought advice from the Tenancy Services website and/or the Call Centre. The website contains bond forms and other such resources that the landlord could have used to inform him of what to do with the bond.
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 landlords 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 22 October 2023 and still had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre as at the date of the hearing; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting their bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s 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 tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 19 weeks and 6 days during the tenancy and a further 28 weeks and 4 days after the tenancy ended, and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenants’ knowledge of who held their bond. The tenant called the Bond Centre to find out how to have the bond released at the end of her tenancy and 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.
I consider the award of the maximum penalty available because of the duration of the breach, the continuity of breach after the landlord became aware of the breach when the tenant raised her concerns and the increased risk to the tenant of not being able to recover his bond when the money should have been on trust for her with the Bond Centre.
I note that the landlord repaid the tenant $817.86 of the bond at the end of the tenancy and retained $1,382.14 to cover the cost of the damages he has claimed at today’s hearing. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because both parties have been wholly or substantially successful with their claims, I must reimburse both filing fees (Refer s102(4) of the RTA).
Because each filing fee award is offset by the other, I have not awarded either party their filing fees. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant have applied for non-publication of their names 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 (See s95A of the RTA).
The landlord and the tenant have both substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord or the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of both the tenant and landlord’s name and identifying details are ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4836301 — net $1,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: replace metal kitchen handles x3	$71.14		Repairs: replace metal kitchen handles x3
Repairs: Repair damage to wall paint from cleaning	$862.50		Repairs: Repair damage to wall paint from cleaning
Cleaning	$184.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal	$264.50		Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge and receipt		$1,500.00	Failure to lodge and receipt
Remainder of the bond to be refunded to the tenant		$1,382.14	Remainder of the bond to be refunded to the tenant
Total award	$1,382.14	$2,882.14
Net award		$1,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,500.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant] $1,500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

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 tenant gave evidence that she took great care to clean the premises and considered them to be reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. She says she cleaned for 10 hours and hired a rug doctor to clean the carpets.
The landlord produced photographs that showed the kitchen sink had dye residue in it, there were dead flies and fly poop in the kitchen drawers, there was hair and dirt in bedroom drawers, the bathroom and kitchen tile grouting was dirty, there were oil stains in the kitchen, the rangehood filters required cleaning, the washing machine bowl required cleaning and there was mould in the silicone around the windows.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
The landlord’s photographs show that while the majority of the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, there were some areas of the premise that were not.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning costs is upheld as it has produced compelling evidence proving its claim and because the tenants have not provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost. I am satisfied the premise was not at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A large number of internal walls had damage to the paint from where the tenant had tried to clean marks. The matt paint was damaged and needed to be sanded and repainted to repair the damage. I accept the tenant did not cause this damage intentionally but that she damaged the paint through her careless use of cleaning products on matt paint walls, after her husband had unsuccessfully tried to repaint the walls with the wrong type of paint; and b. A number of the new metal kitchen drawer handles were oxidised, the landlord says from sauces being spilled on them, and the three worse handles needed to be replaced. The tenant says this was naturally occurring tarnish that could have been cleaned off and was fair wear and tear. I do not agree. New kitchen handles should not have oxidised in the 5-month tenancy and I accept they only did so as a result of the careless acts or omissions of the tenant.
I am satisfied the damage done to the walls and the kitchen handles is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. TENANT’S CLAIMS Failure to lodge bond
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and did not provide her with a receipt the bond.
Section 19(1)(a) of the RTA requires a landlord to give the tenant a written receipt, signed by the landlord, showing: (i) the address of the premises to which the payment relates; and (ii) the amount and nature of the payment; and (iii) the date of the payment; and (iv) the name of the tenant.
Section 19(1)(b) of the RTA requires the landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching these obligations 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 with the Bond Centre for the 339 days it has been from the start of the tenancy on 22 October 2023 and today.
The landlord confirmed he became aware of this obligation when the tenant lodged her application with the Tribunal on 13 March 2024, but he still failed to lodge the bond even after he discovered he had committed an illegal act by holding on to the bond himself. The landlord has had over 6 months since the date the application was lodge to secure the tenant’s bond by submitting it to the Bond Centre, but he did not.
The landlord says he was not aware of the requirement to lodge the bond.
The landlord also confirmed that he had not issued the tenant with a receipt for the $2,200.00 bond she paid to him.
I find the landlord has committed two unlawful acts.
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.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants. 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 and that he was required to issue a receipt.
The landlord could have sought advice from the Tenancy Services website and/or the Call Centre. The website contains bond forms and other such resources that the landlord could have used to inform him of what to do with the bond.
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 landlords 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 22 October 2023 and still had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre as at the date of the hearing; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting their bond money that should have been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s 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 tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 19 weeks and 6 days during the tenancy and a further 28 weeks and 4 days after the tenancy ended, and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenants’ knowledge of who held their bond. The tenant called the Bond Centre to find out how to have the bond released at the end of her tenancy and 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.
I consider the award of the maximum penalty available because of the duration of the breach, the continuity of breach after the landlord became aware of the breach when the tenant raised her concerns and the increased risk to the tenant of not being able to recover his bond when the money should have been on trust for her with the Bond Centre.
I note that the landlord repaid the tenant $817.86 of the bond at the end of the tenancy and retained $1,382.14 to cover the cost of the damages he has claimed at today’s hearing. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because both parties have been wholly or substantially successful with their claims, I must reimburse both filing fees (Refer s102(4) of the RTA).
Because each filing fee award is offset by the other, I have not awarded either party their filing fees. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant have applied for non-publication of their names 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 (See s95A of the RTA).
The landlord and the tenant have both substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord or the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of both the tenant and landlord’s name and identifying details are ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836301 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836301 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions