What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910474 about?

The tribunal order states: Dinesh Chand Bhindi and Kaaushika Chand Bhindi must pay [The tenants]

How much money was awarded in case 4910474?

Compensation: Fixed water charges fo…: $78.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910474?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10934490-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910474 about?

The tribunal order states: Dinesh Chand Bhindi and Kaaushika Chand Bhindi must pay [The tenants]

How much money was awarded in case 4910474?

Compensation: Fixed water charges fo…: $78.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910474?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10934490-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4910474 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4910474 — net $5,299.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement contents- s13A(1CA) breach	$750.00	Tenancy agreement contents- s13A(1CA) breach
Exemplary damages: Key money- s17 breach	$1,500.00	Key money- s17 breach
Exemplary damages: Fixed water charges breach- s45(1)(c	$1,200.00	Fixed water charges breach- s45(1)(c
Compensation: Fixed water charges for May to July 2024	$78.57	Fixed water charges for May to July 2024
Exemplary damages: Breach of privacy- s38	$1,000.00	Breach of privacy- s38
Exemplary damages: No HHS information when requested- breach of s45(1A)(a	$750.00	No HHS information when requested- breach of s45(1A)(a
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,299.01
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,299.01

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4910474 — net $5,299.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement contents- s13A(1CA) breach	$750.00	Tenancy agreement contents- s13A(1CA) breach
Exemplary damages: Key money- s17 breach	$1,500.00	Key money- s17 breach
Exemplary damages: Fixed water charges breach- s45(1)(c	$1,200.00	Fixed water charges breach- s45(1)(c
Compensation: Fixed water charges for May to July 2024	$78.57	Fixed water charges for May to July 2024
Exemplary damages: Breach of privacy- s38	$1,000.00	Breach of privacy- s38
Exemplary damages: No HHS information when requested- breach of s45(1A)(a	$750.00	No HHS information when requested- breach of s45(1A)(a
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,299.01
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,299.01

Order

Dinesh Chand Bhindi and Kaaushika Chand Bhindi must pay [The tenants] $5,299.01 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:
The landlords must not pass on to the tenants any fixed water rates charges.
No rent increase can be given to the tenants until after the end of the fixed term tenancy, being 1 April 2025.
The landlords must: a. Pay the water rates bills directly to WaterCare as they receive them; b. Provide a copy of each water rates bill to the tenants, as the landlord receives these in conjunction with a separate invoice for the consumption charges only. The tenants must pay the invoiced consumption charges within 4 weeks of the tenants receiving the monthly invoice and a copy of that months WaterCare bill.
Clause 4 on page 6 of the original fixed term tenancy agreement (TA1) must be considered to have been modified by the Tribunal to read “Following things included in working order: Fridge, insinkerator, dishwasher, heat pump in lounge, and underfloor heating in the bathroom. Gardens, hedges, and lawns to be always maintained by tenants. Consumption charges for gas, electricity and water are to be paid by the tenants. Fixed gas, electricity and water charges are to be paid by the landlords. The balcony and the house are to be maintained by the tenants in a reasonably clean and tidy condition during the tenancy. The tenants may not smoke on the premise and may not have pets inside the house”.
Within two weeks of the date of this Order, the landlords must complete and sign the healthy home compliance statement in original fixed term tenancy agreement (TA1) and provide the tenants a healthy homes assessment report that shows the house is fully compliant with all the healthy homes standards or an exemption applies. If the house does not pass the healthy homes assessment, the landlords must undertake the required remedial work within one month of the date of the original healthy homes assessment having been undertaken and provide proof to the tenants the house is fully compliant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held at Auckland on 8 October 2024.
The landlords applied for water rates arrears, payment of 4 weeks bond, a declaration as to which tenancy agreement applies to the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s various breaches of their obligations to the tenants pursuant to the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and reimbursement of the filing fee.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Which tenancy agreement applies?

Background

The parties have produced three different fixed term agreements to the Tribunal and seek a declaration in relation to which tenancy agreement is binding and enforceable on the parties.
The landlords provided the tenants with a tenancy agreement which only one of the named landlords signed on 11 February 2024 and both named tenants signed on 15 February 2024. I cannot identify which landlord party signed the tenancy agreement on behalf of both landlords.
This tenancy agreement (“TA1”) is for a fixed term commencing 1 April 2024 and ending on 1 April 2025.
The rent payable is $800.00 per week, to be paid at the start of each rent period, one week in advance.
The tenants are unlawfully required to pay all fixed water usage charges.
No bond payment is required.
TA1 does not contain the following required information: a. No insurance policy information on page 7; b. A healthy homes compliance statement on page 8; c. More detailed healthy homes standards compliance statements for each healthy homes standard and any exemptions that apply on pages 9 to 23; d. No entry inspection report information on page 24.
TA1 also contains a chattel on page 6, being a central vacuum system, that does not exist and has never been a chattel provided to the tenants at any stage of their tenancy.
After the tenancy commenced, the tenants, who have a very young son, experienced some martial difficulty due to the stress of caring for a young child, having very recently moved house, not had enough support, and found their communications becoming strained. In the heat of the moment, on 9 May 2024, they decided to separate for a while and the male tenant temporarily left Auckland. The tenants informed the landlords of this unfortunate event and requested that the tenancy agreement be varied as it was their intention that the female tenant and the young son would continue to reside in the premise and the male tenant would reside elsewhere. The specific variation requested by the tenants was that the male tenant’s name be taken off the tenancy agreement as he was not going to be residing at the premise and did not want to be held legally liable for any rent or water arrears or any other tenant related liability beyond 9 May 2024.
Instead of varying TA1, as requested, the landlords issued the female tenant, with a second fixed term tenancy agreement (“TA2”) that commenced on 6 May 2024 and ended on 6 May 2025.
TA2 named the female tenant only, named both landlords, increased the rent to $810.00 per week (a rent increase of $10.00 per week which TA2 records as including payment for the fixed water charges incurred by the landlord). The rent was still due at the start of each rent period, one week in advance.
No bond was recorded in TA2 as being payable.
An entry inspection report on page 24.
The landlord’s insurance information is provided on page 7.
When the female tenant received TA2, it was not signed by either landlord, and it notably did not contain the following required information: a. A healthy homes compliance statement on page 8; b. More detailed healthy homes standards compliance statements for each healthy homes standard and any exemptions that apply on pages 9 to 23;
TA2 also contains a chattel on page 6, being a central vacuum system, that does not exist and has never been a chattel provided to the tenants at any stage of their tenancy.
TA2 also records that the tenant must cut the hedge below fence level. This was not a requirement set out in TA 1.
The female tenant says she was not happy with the rent increase, the change in the fixed term, the continued inclusion of a central vacuum system in TA2 that did not exist or that she was required to pay to keep the hedges trimmed below the fence line at a cost she estimated to be $200 to $400 per annum.
The tenant says she expressed her concerns and queried why she was being required to sign a new tenancy agreement instead of a variation to remove her husband from TA1.
The tenant says the landlords insisted that she sign TA2 if she wanted her husband to be removed from the tenancy agreement and they also insisted that if she refused to pay the fixed water charges (as was unlawfully required in TA1) they would include the additional cost to them as a $10.00 per week rent increase.
The female tenant says she was in a terrible state, exhausted from caring for her
5-year-old son, from the recent move, from her martial issues and from dealing remotely with the landlords who reside in Wellington. She says that under duress, she signed the incomplete TA2 despite all her objections to being required to do so and hoped that would bring some peace and stability back to her and her son’s lives.
The tenants confirmed a few days later, they reconciled, and the male tenant moved back to the premise. The female tenant says she contacted the landlords on 11 May 2024 at 11:30am and informed the landlords that she and her husband had reconciled and that they wanted TA1 to remain in place. She did not consider her request unreasonable as she had been put under duress to sign TA2 and accepted the tenants had acted hastily and out of emotion when they had asked for the variation removing the male tenant.
The tenants confirmed that instead of agreeing to the cancellation of TA2, the landlords sent a signed and altered copy of TA2 back to the female tenant at 12:50pm on 11 May 2024.
The tenants say they were shocked to receive the amended TA2 and went back to the landlords requesting again that TA1 remain in force as both tenants wanted to retain liability for their joint and several liabilities as tenants. They thought the landlords would be amenable to having both tenants named on the tenancy agreement and both being jointly and severally liable for all costs associated with the tenancy. Particularly as the male tenant is the main bread winner and the female tenant currently dedicated to looking after their young child.
In response to the tenants’ request, the landlord sent TA3, a bond form and a request that the tenants sign both and pay 4 weeks bond, despite TA3 also not requiring a bond as part of the terms of the tenancy on page 5 of TA3. Confusingly, TA3 records a receipt for payment of $3,200.00 bond that the tenants confirmed to me that they had not paid. They were confused why the landlords were issuing them a receipt for $3,200.00 they had not contractually been required to pay in TA1, 2 or 3 and that had not been discussed and agreed prior to the tenants commencing their original tenancy on 1 April 2024.
The tenants were confused and concerned. They also noted that TA3 went for a different fixed term period than TA1 or TA2. It commenced on 27 May 2024 and ended on 7 April 2025.
TA3 also requires a rent of $800.00 per week to be paid at the start of each rent period, a week in advance, but the tenants to pay fixed water charges again, despite the tenants having repeatedly informed the landlords that this was unlawful.
They also noted that on page 6 of TA3, the non-existent central vacuum system was still listed as a chattel and the varied hedge clause had not been removed, despite the tenants both disagreeing with it from when it was inserted into TA2. The clause reads “Gardens, hedges (should be cut well below fence level) and lawns to be always maintained by tenants. Gas, electricity bills to be paid by tenant- not included in rent. Balcony and house to be maintained cleanly. Due to less rent negotiated, Water usage bill (including daily fixed charges) to be paid by tenants. At the end of tenancy, the TV bracket installed in the lounge will be removed and the wall will be reinstated to its original condition -holes covered, wall painted”.
TA3 contained the landlord’s insurance information, a healthy homes compliance statement, no information on compliance with the heating standard, compliance with ceiling and underfloor insulation information, insufficient information about compliance with the ventilation standard and no information on compliance with the moisture ingress, drainage and draught stopping standards.
The tenants say they confirmed to the landlords that they simply wanted TA1 to remain in effect and they did not agree with the new clauses inserted in TA3. They were also confused about why the landlord had sent a bond form and was requesting them to sign it and pay 4 weeks bond, when that had never been agreed as part of any tenancy negotiations and was not included as a required in TA1, 2 or 3. Consequently, they refused to sign TA3.
The landlord also never signed TA3. Analysis of the three tenancy agreements
TA1 has been signed by the landlords prior to it being sent to the tenants to sign.
The tenants have signed and returned TA1 to the landlord and as such have agreed to be bound by its terms.
Section 11 of the RTA confirms: (1) “Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect, unless (a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) The Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. (2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act. (3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.
Some of the terms in TA1 are unlawful, such as requiring the tenants to pay fixed water charges, and section 11 of the RTA prohibits the tenants from contracting out of any part of the RTA and any purported waiver by the tenants of any right or power conferred upon them by the RTA is deemed to be of no effect.
Therefore, the starting point is that TA1, with the unlawful provisions removed, is binding and enforceable on the parties.
The female tenant was placed under duress to sign TA2 at a time when she was emotionally vulnerable and not able to advocate strongly for her rights. She tried to inform the landlords that the tenants only sought a variation to TA1 and had not requested that fixed term tenancy end. She stated that all the tenants requested was a variation to remove the male tenant and that she informed the landlord she did not agree to the rent increase, a different fixed term period, the central vacuum system still being listed as a chattel, and she did not want to accept the responsibility for keeping the hedge trimmed below the fence line at her cost.
Further, the female tenant has proven: a. The landlords modified TA2 without her consent after she had signed and returned it; b. The tenant did not agree to those variations/additions and had not initialled each one of them agreeing to them; c. The tenant withdrew her agreement to be bound by TA2 when she emailed the landlord at 11:30am on 11 May 2024 and informed him she did not wish to be bound by TA2 and he ignored her withdrawal and quickly modified and signed TA2, sent it back to her at 12:50pm (one hour and 20 minutes after she had told him she was cancelling her agreement to be bound by TA2) in an attempt to try to hold her to that modified version of TA2.
The tenants never asked for any new fixed term tenancy agreements, all they ever requested was initially for the male tenant to be taken off TA1 and then for TA1 to remain as it was without modification. This should have been a simple process for the landlords. The male tenant required written agreement from the landlords and the female tenant for his name to be removed from the tenancy agreement. Then a variation form should have been signed by both the landlords and tenants and the variation needed to state what date the variation took effect. After that date the male tenant would not have been able to be held liable for anything to do with the tenancy.
I find that the female tenant never agreed to be bound by TA2 in its modified form, she requested that agreement b cancelled one hour and twenty minutes prior to the landlords unilaterally modifying it and returning the modified version to her with one of the landlord party’s signatures on it. Therefore, I find that TA2 is not binding or enforceable on the female tenant and the landlords are estopped from relying on a fixed term agreement that she was placed under duress to sign and asked to cancel prior to both parties having signed it and accepting all the term and conditions recorded in the modified TA 2 version.
TA3 was offered to the tenants but never accepted by them or signed by them. It remained a document that was being negotiated until the offer was eventually withdrawn by the landlords. At that time, the parties reverted to the original TA1 that was signed by both parties and continued to be binding on both parties. TA1 was signed by the landlords prior to being sent to the tenants to sign, it was not modified unilaterally by the landlords after the tenants had signed and initialled all the terms and conditions within it.
I find that the tenants are Ranjeet Kaur and Gagandeep Singh and the terms and conditions set out in TA1 are enforceable by both parties to it. Amendments to TA1
The Tribunal may vary the terms of a tenancy agreement if the terms are unlawful and unenforceable.
I record that the following variations are to be made to TA1: a. The central vacuum system, that the parties agreed does not exist, is to be removed from clause 3 on page 6; b. Clause 4 of TA1, on page 6, is to be modified to read “Following things included in working order: Fridge, insinkerator, dishwasher, heat pump in lounge, and underfloor heating in the bathroom. Gardens, hedges, and lawns to be always maintained by tenants. Consumption charges for gas, electricity and water are to be paid by the tenants. Fixed gas, electricity and water charges are to be paid by the landlords. The balcony and the house are to be maintained by the tenants in a reasonably clean and tidy condition during the tenancy. The tenants may not smoke on the premise and may not have pets inside the house”.
The landlord must complete the healthy homes compliance statement and complete the detailed healthy homes statement for each healthy home standard or provide the tenants with a copy of a healthy homes assessment report that proves the house is compliant or any exemptions apply.

Are the tenants required to pay the landlord 4 weeks bond money?

TA1 does not contain any provision that requires the tenants to pay a bond.
The bond amount on page 5 of TA1 is not filled in and there is no record of a bond having been paid and receipted anywhere in TA1.
Further, the tenants say that a bond was never discussed with them and at no time prior to them accepting the tenancy and signing TA1 did the landlords discuss a requirement for them to pay a bond.
The evidence provided by both parties shows that discussions about a bond came well after TA1 had been signed by both parties and the tenancy had commenced.
There is no legal requirement for a landlord to require tenants to pay a bond and had the landlords required a bond, they would have discussed and agreed this with the tenants before the tenants agreed to rent the premise and it would have been recorded in TA1 that they signed.
During the hearing, the landlords confirmed to me that they had not charged the prior tenant bond, as they liked and trusted her and that they had only started to ask for bond when the tenants asked for the key money back in May 2024 that they had been unlawfully required to pay in February 2024.
I am satisfied that the landlords did not tell the tenants they required 4 weeks bond and a week’s rent in advance prior to the tenants agreeing to rent the premise and then the landlords did not include the requirement for the tenants to pay a bond in TA1. As such, they are estopped from trying to unilaterally vary the terms and conditions of TA1 and cannot now require the tenants to pay a bond without the tenants written consent to that variation to TA1.
I find the 14-day notice, issued by the landlord on 24 May 2024, requiring the tenants to pay 4 weeks bond to be unlawful and unenforceable.
I dismiss the landlords claim for lack of evidence to prove its claim that it has a legal right to require the tenants to pay 4 weeks bond money. The tenants have provided evidence that has disproven the landlords claim. Water rates arrears
The landlords applied for water rates arrears of $97.74 for the water rates invoice dated 5 August 2024.
The landlords withdrew this claim during the hearing, as they confirmed the tenants had already paid this sum to them.
When reviewing the water rates claim and the three tenancy agreements, I became aware that the landlords had unlawfully charged the tenants fixed water charges of $78.57 which I have ordered be reimbursed to the tenants. This amount is made up of: a. $26.06 for the month of May 2024; b. $24.48 for the month of June 2024; and c. $28.03 for the month of July 2024.
The parties confirmed the landlords had paid the fixed water charges of $19.74 for the month of April 2024 and that they had not yet received payment from the tenants for the water rates for August 2024.
Under s45(1)(c) the landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes a requirement for the landlord to comply with the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the tenants are provided with an adequate supply of wholesome and potable water to the premises.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which a maximum award of exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlords have committed an unlawful act by requiring the tenants to pay fixed water charges.
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.
I am satisfied the landlords intentionally breached their obligation to pay for the fixed water charges and find it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $1,200.00 of exemplary damages (a sixth of maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlords should have reasonably known they had to comply with the section 45(1)(c) of the RTA not to charge tenants fixed water charges and intentionally passed on these costs to the tenants even after the tenants informed the landlords this was unlawful. The evidence the landlords gave the Tribunal proves when the tenants’ raised concerns about the unlawful nature of this requirement, the landlords forced the female tenant to sign TA2 to allow the landlords to raise the rent before 12 months had passed to cover this additional cost to them; b. The tenants have been out to the stress and inconvenience of trying to get the landlords to comply with their obligation to pay the fixed water charges and then being forced to sign TA2 and have the landlords steadfastly try to hold the female tenant to the TA2 terms and conditions. This includes a $10.00 per week rent increase to cover an average of around $25.00 of fixed water charges per month; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlords’ breach of s45(1)(c) and the HIR; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlords that intentionally breach the law and try to find creative ways around the requirement not to increase the tenants rent before 12 months has passed, not to terminate a fixed term agreement without the tenants’ consent and not to pass on fixed water charges using whatever surreptitious means they think they can get away with.
The landlords must not pass on to the tenants any further fixed water rates charges. Fixed water rates, gas or electricity charges are for the service providers ensuring supply of those utilities to the premise, regardless of whether anyone is using them.
The landlord may not increase the rent to cover these fixed utility costs.
No rent increase can be given to the tenants until after the end of the fixed term tenancy, being 1 April 2025.
Going forward, the landlords must pay the water rates bills directly to WaterCare and must provide a copy of each water rates bill to the tenants as the landlord receives these and must invoice the tenants for the consumption charges only. These consumption charges must be paid to the landlord within 4 weeks of the tenants receiving the monthly invoice and a copy of that months WaterCare bill.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement?

The tenants claim the landlords have breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the RTA.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premise complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premise is subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not provide the tenants with the required health homes information in any of the fixed term tenancy agreements, but specifically the landlords did not provide any healthy homes information in TA1, the only tenancy agreement I have found to be binding and enforceable on the parties.
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, 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.
I am satisfied the landlords intentionally failed to provide the tenants with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlords should have reasonably known they had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and intentionally did not. The evidence the landlords gave the Tribunal suggests the landlord intentionally did not comply with the HHS standards requirements. In addition, the tenancy agreement used is the template agreement provided by tenancy services. This template includes the healthy homes statements required to be provided and those parts of the template have been intentionally left incomplete; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise that did not know met any of the HHS and they say the house is cold and damp and this has led to their 1.5- year-old son having respiratory issues. Further they say, their doctor believes the cold and damp conditions in the son’s living environment is the likely cause of his health issues. The tenants say they may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise did not comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, but were denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlords’ failure to provide signed proof to the tenant that the rental premise meets all the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlords that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards compliance and detailed statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes information on the request of the tenants?
[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 (1AC) of the RTA.
Under section 45 (1AC), a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants have proven they requested this information on 3 and 20 June 2024. The tenants say the house was very cold and they have a young child and so they asked for a HHS report as they wanted to understand why it was so cold and there was scant information provided in any of the three tenancy agreements The parties confirmed this and that the tenants had also asked for a heat pump to be put into the master bedroom, after becoming concerned the home they rent is not healthy homes compliant and that their doctor considers their living environment to be a likely cause of their son’s respiratory issues.
The tenants also provided emails that stated they would pay for the additional heat pump and the landlord could pay them back by giving them a rent reduction until the purchase and installation costs had been paid back to the tenants.
The landlords said they didn’t have to provide any further heat pumps and didn’t agree to this proposal as they felt the tenants were “too demanding”. They also said, “if he (the male tenant) had asked them more respectfully they probably would have allowed him to have a second heat pump installed”.
The landlords also gave evidence that because the male tenant “kept on asking about the healthy home report they told him the only other way he could verify it was to look at” the kilowatts of “the heat pump in the lounge and climb underneath the house to see the condition of the pink bats”. They also say they told the male tenant “they did not require him to go inside the ceiling because there is no access”. Further, they say they called tenancy services and was told they did not have to provide a healthy homes certificate to the tenants. This was not what they had requested.
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, 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.
I am satisfied the landlords intentionally failed to provide the tenants with the healthy homes information they requested repeatedly from 3 June 2024 to the date of the hearing, and as they required to do pursuant to s45(1AC) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlords should have reasonably known they had to provide the tenants with the requested healthy homes information within 21 days of the 3 June 2024 and they did not. They should have known that this request was important to the tenants, especially when the landlords had not provided this information in the tenancy agreement, and the tenants informed them that they were concerned about how cold the house was and that their son kept getting respiratory issues that the doctor attributed to the house potentially not meeting healthy homes standards. The landlords made no attempt to find out whether the house was healthy homes compliant or to get a healthy homes assessment done by a third-party provider to enable them to find out; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they continue to live in a cold and damp house with their 1.5-year-old son continuing to have respiratory issues and being unable to rule out the living environment as a cause; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlords’ failure to provide the healthy homes information requested on 3 June 2024. This information had still not been provided to the tenants at the date of the hearing. The hearing was held 19 weeks and 4 days after the tenants first request for this information. That is significantly more than the statutory required 21 days; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlords that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide healthy homes information within 21 days of the tenant requesting it. It not a sufficient response to this type of request to tell the tenants to undertake the assessment themselves if they want to find out if the house complies with the insulation standard. Did the landlords breach the tenants’ privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premise?
[The tenants] claim the landlord has breached their privacy.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants say the prior tenants had told them the landlords called the prior tenants and informed them about the issues they were having with the tenants and asked them to meditate between the parties. Further, the tenants say this has caused an issue in the relationship they had with the prior tenants and has made them feel harassed by the landlords.
The landlady confirmed during the hearing that the landlords and the tenants were friends with the prior tenants, that is how the new tenants came to rent the house and that she “went back to the prior tenant and asked about what kind of people you have referred to me and told them about the issues with the hedges and the contracts”. Further, they said the prior tenant had sided with them as they had been “nice to her releasing her from the fixed term contract so she could go back to India”. When I asked the landlord again if she had gone to the prior tenants to ask them to interfere in the tenancy relationship, she confirmed that she “talked to prior tenants and the prior tenants husband agreed to go to the new tenants and try to solve the problems”.
I find the landlords have committed an unlawful act. They have interfered with the tenants privacy and have asked the prior tenants to go to the tenants to try to resolve the landlords issues, thereby breaching the tenants quiet enjoyment of the rental premise.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlords to pay a sum of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlords knew that it was reasonably foreseeable that going to talk to the prior tenants about their issues with the tenants and asking the prior tenants to try to resolve these issues with the tenants was a breach of the tenants privacy and that when the prior tenants approached them about these issues that the tenants would find this to be a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premise; b. The tenants suffered the stress of having their privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property breached as they could not avoid the landlords interfering with their privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property, they forced the tenants’ friends to approach them to try and sort out issues that they should not have been privy to; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy and not to have their friends requested to come to their home and interfere in what were contractual issues between the landlord and tenant parties.

Did the landlords require the tenants to pay key money?

[The tenants] claim the landlord has requested ‘key money’.
A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation, or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(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 17(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say the landlords required them to pay a deposit of $2,400.00 on 19 February 2024 to hold the house and not readvertise the property. They agreed to this request as they were not aware it was unlawful for a landlord to ask for key money and the tenants wanted the house when their friends moved out.
The landlord confirmed the property was advertised on trade me and says the male tenant offered to pay them $2,400.00 to hold the house for him, his wife and son. The landlord says the tenant offered this to have the house held as the date the prior tenants were to move out was not clear at the time, the tenants were friends of the prior tenants and the tenants were prepared to wait until the prior tenant vacated as long as they were not going to have to compete with other potential tenants that answered the trade me advertisement.
The tenants denied offering this key money to the landlord, but considered they had no choice but to pay this key money if they wanted to secure the rental premise.
The parties confirmed on 13 May 2024, the key money was refunded on demand from the male tenant as the landlord had no legal right to this money.
Once the male tenant demanded the key money back, the landlords then started to ask the female tenant for bond money after she signed the TA2.
The landlords say this was not key money and they intended to ask the tenants for one more week rent when they undertook the entry inspection on 19 April 2024 to make up 4 weeks bond money, when TA2 does not have any provision in it requiring any bond to be paid.
The landlords also confirmed several times that they had required $2,400.00 to hold the premise for the tenants and to remove the trade me advertisement for the rental premise. They also confirmed they had not charged the prior tenant bond and had also required the same amount of key money from the prior tenant. The landlords also confirmed this key money was never lodged with the Bond Centre, as it was not a bond.
I find that the landlords actions amount to a request for key money and is 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 (s 109(3) RTA).
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlords to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum available) because: a. The landlords knew that it was unlawful to ask for key money and they have repeatedly done so to vulnerable people that did not feel they had any other option but to comply if they wanted to secure a home; b. The tenants were required to pay money, other than rent or bond for the grant of a tenancy agreement, in breach of s17(1) of the RTA and this was money they could ill afford. The landlord retained the key money, without any legal right to it from 19 February 2024 to 13 May 2024. This money was not being held by the Bond Centre on trust for the tenants and as such their money was at risk for this entire period; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ blatant breach of s17(1) of the RTA; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations not to require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation, or assignment of a tenancy agreement.

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

[The tenants] claim that the landlords have breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced after 1 July 2021, therefore the landlords were required to ensure the house met all the healthy homes standard no later than 90 days after the tenancy commenced on 1 April 2024.
[The tenants] considers that the landlord has specifically failed to comply with the HHS heating standard, and they are unsure whether the landlords have breached any other healthy homes standards as they do not have sufficient information to enable them to prove that. The say they did not have any disposal income to pay for a healthy homes assessment report themselves as they live week to week on what they earn.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
In this case the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims that the landlords have failed to ensure the house complies with all the healthy homes standards within 90 days of the start of the tenancy.
The parties have confirmed the premise has a heat pump in the lounge, but they cannot confirm the kilowatts output of the heat pump. The tenants say this is a large 4-bedroom home and that the heat pump doesn’t adequately heat the main living areas let alone the rest of the house. The heating standard only requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the main living room to a required level.
I dismiss the tenants claims for lack of evidence to prove their claim on balance. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because [the tenants] have substantially succeeded with their claims I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the landlords have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims I dismiss their claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply 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.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910474 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910474 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Which tenancy agreement applies?

Are the tenants required to pay the landlord 4 weeks bond money?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlords require the tenants to pay key money?

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Which tenancy agreement applies?

Are the tenants required to pay the landlord 4 weeks bond money?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlords require the tenants to pay key money?

Did the landlord breach the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions