What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839167 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (3688762-012) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4839167?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839167?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839167?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10567453-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839167 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (3688762-012) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4839167?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839167?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839167?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10567453-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Wittys Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4839167 — Healthy homes

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (3688762-012) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for a refund of their bond and for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement. Preliminary note
The tenancy agreement records the landlord as [The landlord/s] / Timber Sanctuary Limited. However, that company name does not appear on the Companies Register website. A company called Timber Berry Sanctuary Limited is registered with Mr Kung as the sole director.
I have limited the landlord to Mr Kung personally as nothing turns on the addition of his company as a landlord. Bond refund
The bond belongs to the tenants in law until the landlord proves a claim against it.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that when a tenant applies for a refund of the bond and the landlord has claims against it, the landlord must file a counter claim (a cross application).
Mr Kung confirmed that he had not filed an application for costs from the bond.
The bond must therefore be awarded to the tenants. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
Sections 13 and 13A RTA set out the requirements of a tenancy agreement and what the agreement must contain. A failure to comply with those sections is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $750.00 may be awarded.
Mr Kung gave evidence that he is a first-time landlord. He said he became confused about the times frames between completing a Healthy Homes compliance statement and ensuring compliance with the Health Homes Standards.
I accept his evidence and I find that he did not commit the unlawful act described above intentionally with regard to the test set out in Birch. He acted negligently, but that is not enough.
Without the necessary element of intent, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.
I dismiss the tenants’ application for exemplary damages. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenants in full.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee as the application is only partly successful. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek a name suppression order.
The landlord sought name suppression. I make no suppression order as he has not wholly or substantially succeeded in his defence – see section 95A RTA.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (3688762-012) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for a refund of their bond and for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement. Preliminary note
The tenancy agreement records the landlord as [The landlord/s] / Timber Sanctuary Limited. However, that company name does not appear on the Companies Register website. A company called Timber Berry Sanctuary Limited is registered with Mr Kung as the sole director.
I have limited the landlord to Mr Kung personally as nothing turns on the addition of his company as a landlord. Bond refund
The bond belongs to the tenants in law until the landlord proves a claim against it.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that when a tenant applies for a refund of the bond and the landlord has claims against it, the landlord must file a counter claim (a cross application).
Mr Kung confirmed that he had not filed an application for costs from the bond.
The bond must therefore be awarded to the tenants. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
Sections 13 and 13A RTA set out the requirements of a tenancy agreement and what the agreement must contain. A failure to comply with those sections is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $750.00 may be awarded.
Mr Kung gave evidence that he is a first-time landlord. He said he became confused about the times frames between completing a Healthy Homes compliance statement and ensuring compliance with the Health Homes Standards.
I accept his evidence and I find that he did not commit the unlawful act described above intentionally with regard to the test set out in Birch. He acted negligently, but that is not enough.
Without the necessary element of intent, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.
I dismiss the tenants’ application for exemplary damages. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenants in full.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee as the application is only partly successful. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek a name suppression order.
The landlord sought name suppression. I make no suppression order as he has not wholly or substantially succeeded in his defence – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839167 — Healthy homes at 15 Wittys Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839167 — Healthy homes at 15 Wittys Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions