What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4852607 about?

The tribunal order states: Sandra Archer and Daniel Archer must pay [The tenant/s] $14,200.44

How much money was awarded in case 4852607?

Compensation: lack of maintenance an…: $7,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852607?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852607?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10713453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4852607 about?

The tribunal order states: Sandra Archer and Daniel Archer must pay [The tenant/s] $14,200.44

How much money was awarded in case 4852607?

Compensation: lack of maintenance an…: $7,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852607?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852607?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10713453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Mountbatten Grove, Clouston Park, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4852607 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852607 — net $14,200.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$1,680.00	Refund of the bond
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Compensation: lack of maintenance and loss of amenity	$7,000.00	lack of maintenance and loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: maintenance breaches	$5,000.00	maintenance breaches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,200.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,200.44

Order

Sandra Archer and Daniel Archer must pay [The tenant/s] $14,200.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Both Mr Archer and Ms Archer are named as landlords on the tenancy agreement. Ms Archer was not sure if orders should be made against her or her and Mr Archer. This is because of a separation. My understanding is that both parties still own the tenancy premises and Ms Archer has been managing the tenancy. I was not provided with a change of landlord form or a variation of the tenancy. I suggested Ms Archer check with her lawyer, but he was not available. Ms Archer confirmed that Mr Archer knew about the hearing and decided not to attend. It seems most likely to me that both are landlords of the tenancy premises and orders are made accordingly.
The tenants have lived in the house since April 2018. They have two young children. The tenants filed their application because they were fed up with waiting for maintenance and repairs. Since they filed the application they found a new tenancy and the last day of this tenancy was 30 July 2024. They no longer need work orders, but their compensation claim is still relevant. They have also applied for exemplary damages. The questions I have to decide are: • Should the bond be refunded? • Should the landlord pay exemplary damage for failing to lodge the bond? • Should the tenants get compensation because maintenance was ignored? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the maintenance breaches?
We had a case conference in May 2024 that the tenants attended. I amended and clarified the claim and made directions. The relevant part of the directions is set out below:
The tenants’ claim is clarified and amended to include the claims on the application form and: •Exemplary damages for breach of duty to lodge the bond - section 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) •A work order for trimming the trees – section 78(1) RTA •Compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of the duty to repair and maintain – section 45 RTA •Compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of the duty to insulate – section 45 RTA •Compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 in relation to heating – see section 45 RTA •Compensation for the cost of the HHS report in the amount of $235.49.
The claim for smoke alarms is withdrawn.
The claims relating to the heathy homes breaches will not be considered at the hearing because the landlord has until 1 July 2025 to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Should the bond be refunded?

The tenants have proved the bond was paid and not lodged. The tenants want their bond refunded. This was not part of their original application but should be addressed now the tenancy has ended.
The landlord said she does not want to return the bond because she has a claim for damage. She confirmed that she has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenants. This must be paid by the landlord.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damage for failing to lodge the bond?

It is agreed evidence the landlords have not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. See section 19 and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA.
The landlord said there was every intention to lodge the bond. She produced a bond lodgement form that was properly signed by both parties when the tenancy started. She said there must have been a mistake. The effect for the tenants was minimal during the tenancy because they only found out about the bond this year. It has affected them now because the landlords have retained the tenants’ money. It is tenants’ interests that bond money is held by an independent third party. There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they ignore their obligations as set out in the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $500. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of other similar orders against the landlords.

Should the tenants get compensation because maintenance was ignored?

The tenants claim that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA which require the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I accept the were many genuine requests for maintenance during the tenancy. The tenants have proved that the landlord knew about the following maintenance in March 2022: • Issues with the fireplace and the flue and the fire bricks • The rotting french doors • The french doors not locking properly • The deck “soft” in places and “unsafe” • The deck fencing breaking.
The tenants have proved the landlords knew about the following maintenance in November 2022: • The bathroom paint peeling off • The cement slabs in the garden moving and becoming a “big tripping hazard”.
The tenants have proved the landlords knew about this maintenance in March 2024: • The broken and ineffective guttering • The broken boundary fence.
No maintenance or repair of the listed items has been carried out by the landlords. The landlord said that they did not conduct any inspections over the six year tenancy. They did occasionally go the house after a request for maintenance. The landlords arranged some quotes but none of the work was carried out because it was “too expensive” or too hard. Often this change of plan was not communicated to the tenants. The landlord also said she was unaware of some of the issues, like the amount of mould in the house.
The tenants have applied for $7000 in compensation. They said there has been a significant loss over the years. They have not been able to use the deck. The youngest child tripped on the concrete in the garden two months after they notified the landlord and needs major dental reconstruction work, so they have not been able to use the garden. They stopped using the fire because it was burning the wood too quickly and they were concerned about safety. They bought electric heaters but these did not properly heat the lounge because of the draughts from the french doors. The bathroom was only given an undercoat after a renovation and the paint was not fit for purpose. The guttering overflows because it is rusted through in places. The ground water does not drain properly.
It seems most likely to me the draughts and the broken gutters have contributed to the cold and damp in the house and to the mould which was especially bad in the winters. As well there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying for a house in reasonable repair and was not their reality.
I find the $7000 claimed to be reasonable. Dividing that by the 122 weeks since March 2022 that is compensation equivalent to $67 a week. Rent at that stage was $460 a week and rent increased to $560 a week in March 2023. Given that none of the maintenance was fixed, and that more issues arose the amount seems reasonable to me.
Other claims have not been proved. The information about insulation is inconclusive. I am not persuaded the house was sinking. I am not persuaded the landlords knew about the missing laundry tub. The tenants have not made the right claim that there was misleading information in the tenancy agreement about the ground moisture barrier. I find the tenants should pay for the Healthy Homes Report because this was not necessary to their claim. These claims and any others discussed at the hearing but not specifically referred to in this order are dismissed.

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the maintenance breaches?

I find the landlords 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. The same considerations apply. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord did not make a submission about intention. She said money was a factor in the decision making during the tenancy, she had family to care for and she could not get on top of things. I find that choosing not to maintain and repair was intentional. The effect for the tenants was sorrow that they had not provided a safe home for their children, who have asthma and respiratory issues. The tenants themselves have suffered illness and stress because of their living conditions and their inability to arrange repairs. It is in tenants’ interests that they live in warm, dry, and safe homes. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to incentivise responsible behaviour.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $5000. This is near the middle of the range because of the ongoing nature of the breaches throughout the tenancy premises. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have allowed the tenants’ application for suppression because they are the most successful party. The landlords application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when landlords are ordered to pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852607 — net $14,200.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$1,680.00	Refund of the bond
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Compensation: lack of maintenance and loss of amenity	$7,000.00	lack of maintenance and loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: maintenance breaches	$5,000.00	maintenance breaches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,200.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,200.44

Order

Sandra Archer and Daniel Archer must pay [The tenant/s] $14,200.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Both Mr Archer and Ms Archer are named as landlords on the tenancy agreement. Ms Archer was not sure if orders should be made against her or her and Mr Archer. This is because of a separation. My understanding is that both parties still own the tenancy premises and Ms Archer has been managing the tenancy. I was not provided with a change of landlord form or a variation of the tenancy. I suggested Ms Archer check with her lawyer, but he was not available. Ms Archer confirmed that Mr Archer knew about the hearing and decided not to attend. It seems most likely to me that both are landlords of the tenancy premises and orders are made accordingly.
The tenants have lived in the house since April 2018. They have two young children. The tenants filed their application because they were fed up with waiting for maintenance and repairs. Since they filed the application they found a new tenancy and the last day of this tenancy was 30 July 2024. They no longer need work orders, but their compensation claim is still relevant. They have also applied for exemplary damages. The questions I have to decide are: • Should the bond be refunded? • Should the landlord pay exemplary damage for failing to lodge the bond? • Should the tenants get compensation because maintenance was ignored? • Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the maintenance breaches?
We had a case conference in May 2024 that the tenants attended. I amended and clarified the claim and made directions. The relevant part of the directions is set out below:
The tenants’ claim is clarified and amended to include the claims on the application form and: •Exemplary damages for breach of duty to lodge the bond - section 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) •A work order for trimming the trees – section 78(1) RTA •Compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of the duty to repair and maintain – section 45 RTA •Compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of the duty to insulate – section 45 RTA •Compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 in relation to heating – see section 45 RTA •Compensation for the cost of the HHS report in the amount of $235.49.
The claim for smoke alarms is withdrawn.
The claims relating to the heathy homes breaches will not be considered at the hearing because the landlord has until 1 July 2025 to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Should the bond be refunded?

The tenants have proved the bond was paid and not lodged. The tenants want their bond refunded. This was not part of their original application but should be addressed now the tenancy has ended.
The landlord said she does not want to return the bond because she has a claim for damage. She confirmed that she has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenants. This must be paid by the landlord.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damage for failing to lodge the bond?

It is agreed evidence the landlords have not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. See section 19 and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA.
The landlord said there was every intention to lodge the bond. She produced a bond lodgement form that was properly signed by both parties when the tenancy started. She said there must have been a mistake. The effect for the tenants was minimal during the tenancy because they only found out about the bond this year. It has affected them now because the landlords have retained the tenants’ money. It is tenants’ interests that bond money is held by an independent third party. There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they ignore their obligations as set out in the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $500. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of other similar orders against the landlords.

Should the tenants get compensation because maintenance was ignored?

The tenants claim that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA which require the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I accept the were many genuine requests for maintenance during the tenancy. The tenants have proved that the landlord knew about the following maintenance in March 2022: • Issues with the fireplace and the flue and the fire bricks • The rotting french doors • The french doors not locking properly • The deck “soft” in places and “unsafe” • The deck fencing breaking.
The tenants have proved the landlords knew about the following maintenance in November 2022: • The bathroom paint peeling off • The cement slabs in the garden moving and becoming a “big tripping hazard”.
The tenants have proved the landlords knew about this maintenance in March 2024: • The broken and ineffective guttering • The broken boundary fence.
No maintenance or repair of the listed items has been carried out by the landlords. The landlord said that they did not conduct any inspections over the six year tenancy. They did occasionally go the house after a request for maintenance. The landlords arranged some quotes but none of the work was carried out because it was “too expensive” or too hard. Often this change of plan was not communicated to the tenants. The landlord also said she was unaware of some of the issues, like the amount of mould in the house.
The tenants have applied for $7000 in compensation. They said there has been a significant loss over the years. They have not been able to use the deck. The youngest child tripped on the concrete in the garden two months after they notified the landlord and needs major dental reconstruction work, so they have not been able to use the garden. They stopped using the fire because it was burning the wood too quickly and they were concerned about safety. They bought electric heaters but these did not properly heat the lounge because of the draughts from the french doors. The bathroom was only given an undercoat after a renovation and the paint was not fit for purpose. The guttering overflows because it is rusted through in places. The ground water does not drain properly.
It seems most likely to me the draughts and the broken gutters have contributed to the cold and damp in the house and to the mould which was especially bad in the winters. As well there was a loss of amenity because the tenants were paying for a house in reasonable repair and was not their reality.
I find the $7000 claimed to be reasonable. Dividing that by the 122 weeks since March 2022 that is compensation equivalent to $67 a week. Rent at that stage was $460 a week and rent increased to $560 a week in March 2023. Given that none of the maintenance was fixed, and that more issues arose the amount seems reasonable to me.
Other claims have not been proved. The information about insulation is inconclusive. I am not persuaded the house was sinking. I am not persuaded the landlords knew about the missing laundry tub. The tenants have not made the right claim that there was misleading information in the tenancy agreement about the ground moisture barrier. I find the tenants should pay for the Healthy Homes Report because this was not necessary to their claim. These claims and any others discussed at the hearing but not specifically referred to in this order are dismissed.

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the maintenance breaches?

I find the landlords 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. The same considerations apply. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord did not make a submission about intention. She said money was a factor in the decision making during the tenancy, she had family to care for and she could not get on top of things. I find that choosing not to maintain and repair was intentional. The effect for the tenants was sorrow that they had not provided a safe home for their children, who have asthma and respiratory issues. The tenants themselves have suffered illness and stress because of their living conditions and their inability to arrange repairs. It is in tenants’ interests that they live in warm, dry, and safe homes. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to incentivise responsible behaviour.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $5000. This is near the middle of the range because of the ongoing nature of the breaches throughout the tenancy premises. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have allowed the tenants’ application for suppression because they are the most successful party. The landlords application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when landlords are ordered to pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852607 — Exemplary damages at 22 Mountbatten Grove, Clouston Park, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852607 — Exemplary damages at 22 Mountbatten Grove, Clouston Park, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the bond be refunded?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damage for failing to lodge the bond?

Should the tenants get compensation because maintenance was ignored?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the maintenance breaches?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the bond be refunded?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damage for failing to lodge the bond?

Should the tenants get compensation because maintenance was ignored?

Should the tenants get exemplary damages because of the maintenance breaches?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions