What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927675 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4927675?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927675?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927675?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12175912-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927675 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4927675?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927675?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927675?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12175912-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 16, 45 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927675 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927675 — net $727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$500.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$727.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
By declaration, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in relation to the premises occupied by Astrid Elizabeth Anna Atlas at unit 16, 45 Main Highway, Ellerslie.
Hui-Mei (Johnny) Kang must pay [The tenant/s] $727.00 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Jurisdiction
The landlord has raised the issue as to whether this situation comes within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. The landlord’s position is that this is not a tenancy because the premises are within a hotel, and it is registered as a hotel.
There are several units some of which the landlord said are used as temporary accommodation. There are some units that are long term arrangements for corporate clines where the tenant stays for more than three months.
For this tenancy, the tenant signed a registration form titled “Astor Motor Inn Registration”. It records that the renting start date was 19 May 2023 for a minimum of eight weeks. After eight weeks the owner can give the tenant one weeks’ notice to move out. The rent for one person was $375.00 per week.
The tenancy included outgoings and it was furnished with a list of chattels on the registration form. The premises were self-contained.
The tenant remained at the premises from 19 May 2023 until 5 July 2024, a period of 59 weeks. On 4 April 2024 the landlord gave the tenant 90 days written notice to vacate due to planned significant renovations. At the time the notice was given the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 1 provided that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if extensive alterations, refurbishments, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken.
When asked why the landlord gave the tenant the 90 days’ notice the landlord said that it was to provide the tenant with time to find a new place.
Section 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out situations where the Act does not apply. Relevant to this situation is section 5(1)(k) which states, “(1)This Act shall not apply in the following cases: (k)where the premises – (i)are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii)are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.”
The agreement records that the accommodation was intended to be for 56 days (8 weeks) which is more than the intended period of less than 28 days at a time as provided in section 5(1)(k). The tenancy continued for 413 days (59 weeks), which is considerably longer than 28 days. 1 Section 51(2)(f)
Given the evidence before me I consider that this situation does not come within the exclusion provided in section 5(1)(k) of the Act. That means that this tenancy is within the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act and such a declaration is made. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for a work order, a claim in relation to the Healthy Homes standards, compensation, and exemplary damages.
As the tenancy ended on 5 July 2024 a work order is no longer required so that claim is dismissed.
When asked about her other claims the tenant said that she sought damages for psychological and physical abuse. The psychological abuse was in relation to constant phone calls and emails form the landlord in relation to unpaid rent. The physical abuse was in relation to the circumstances of when the tenancy ended, and I am told that the Police attended.
There is no jurisdiction to make an order in relation to the landlord’s contact with the tenant. For the physical abuse there is also no jurisdiction and instead the tenant may seek the assistance of the Police. Those claims are dismissed.
The tenant claimed that the premises did not have a heater and therefore the landlord has breached its 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. In relation to tenancies which started or were renewed between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 the compliance date is within 120 days of the start date. As this tenancy commenced on 19 May 2023 the compliance date for this tenancy was 16 September 2023.
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 landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard by not providing any form of heating throughout the tenancy. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant lived at the premises for over a year including all of winter without a heater. The landlord knew that there was no heating. It is in the public interest for tenants to have a minimum standard of living which includes heating.
I consider that exemplary damages of $500.00 are reasonable in the circumstances.
The tenant claims the landlord had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The registration form signed by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy records payment of a three-week “deposit” which would have totalled $1,125.00. I find they 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.
The landlord knew that the bond was not lodged but at the hearing said that this was because they believed that it was a hotel rather than a residential tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the bond was applied to rent arrears but that was not a matter before the Tribunal and the tenant did not appear to be aware of how much she owed. If the bond had been lodged the Tribunal could have dealt with this and provide some clarity for both parties.
On the evidence I consider that exemplary damages of $200.00 are reasonable.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927675 — net $727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$500.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$727.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
By declaration, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in relation to the premises occupied by Astrid Elizabeth Anna Atlas at unit 16, 45 Main Highway, Ellerslie.
Hui-Mei (Johnny) Kang must pay [The tenant/s] $727.00 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Jurisdiction
The landlord has raised the issue as to whether this situation comes within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. The landlord’s position is that this is not a tenancy because the premises are within a hotel, and it is registered as a hotel.
There are several units some of which the landlord said are used as temporary accommodation. There are some units that are long term arrangements for corporate clines where the tenant stays for more than three months.
For this tenancy, the tenant signed a registration form titled “Astor Motor Inn Registration”. It records that the renting start date was 19 May 2023 for a minimum of eight weeks. After eight weeks the owner can give the tenant one weeks’ notice to move out. The rent for one person was $375.00 per week.
The tenancy included outgoings and it was furnished with a list of chattels on the registration form. The premises were self-contained.
The tenant remained at the premises from 19 May 2023 until 5 July 2024, a period of 59 weeks. On 4 April 2024 the landlord gave the tenant 90 days written notice to vacate due to planned significant renovations. At the time the notice was given the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 1 provided that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if extensive alterations, refurbishments, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken.
When asked why the landlord gave the tenant the 90 days’ notice the landlord said that it was to provide the tenant with time to find a new place.
Section 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out situations where the Act does not apply. Relevant to this situation is section 5(1)(k) which states, “(1)This Act shall not apply in the following cases: (k)where the premises – (i)are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii)are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.”
The agreement records that the accommodation was intended to be for 56 days (8 weeks) which is more than the intended period of less than 28 days at a time as provided in section 5(1)(k). The tenancy continued for 413 days (59 weeks), which is considerably longer than 28 days. 1 Section 51(2)(f)
Given the evidence before me I consider that this situation does not come within the exclusion provided in section 5(1)(k) of the Act. That means that this tenancy is within the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act and such a declaration is made. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for a work order, a claim in relation to the Healthy Homes standards, compensation, and exemplary damages.
As the tenancy ended on 5 July 2024 a work order is no longer required so that claim is dismissed.
When asked about her other claims the tenant said that she sought damages for psychological and physical abuse. The psychological abuse was in relation to constant phone calls and emails form the landlord in relation to unpaid rent. The physical abuse was in relation to the circumstances of when the tenancy ended, and I am told that the Police attended.
There is no jurisdiction to make an order in relation to the landlord’s contact with the tenant. For the physical abuse there is also no jurisdiction and instead the tenant may seek the assistance of the Police. Those claims are dismissed.
The tenant claimed that the premises did not have a heater and therefore the landlord has breached its 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. In relation to tenancies which started or were renewed between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 the compliance date is within 120 days of the start date. As this tenancy commenced on 19 May 2023 the compliance date for this tenancy was 16 September 2023.
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 landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard by not providing any form of heating throughout the tenancy. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant lived at the premises for over a year including all of winter without a heater. The landlord knew that there was no heating. It is in the public interest for tenants to have a minimum standard of living which includes heating.
I consider that exemplary damages of $500.00 are reasonable in the circumstances.
The tenant claims the landlord had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The registration form signed by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy records payment of a three-week “deposit” which would have totalled $1,125.00. I find they 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.
The landlord knew that the bond was not lodged but at the hearing said that this was because they believed that it was a hotel rather than a residential tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the bond was applied to rent arrears but that was not a matter before the Tribunal and the tenant did not appear to be aware of how much she owed. If the bond had been lodged the Tribunal could have dealt with this and provide some clarity for both parties.
On the evidence I consider that exemplary damages of $200.00 are reasonable.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927675 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 16, 45 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927675 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 16, 45 Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions