What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4934275 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4934275?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,775.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934275?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10971410-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4934275 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4934275?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,775.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934275?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10971410-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 182 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4934275 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4934275 — net $4,552.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$3,775.00	Section 45
Exemplary damages: Landlord failing to appoint agent	$750.00	Landlord failing to appoint agent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,552.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,552.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Sunil Thalor must pay [The tenant/s] $4,552.00 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for a work order and exemplary damages.
The landlord applied for termination and rent arrears. Background
The tenancy began on 22 March 2024.
Since the applications were filed, the tenancy has come to an end. The tenant left the premises on 19 August 2024. Tenant application
As the tenant has left the premises the work order is no longer required. That claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
The landlord failed to maintain the premises in relation to the oven, a broken cat door, broken lighting and leaking. 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 oven at the premises did not work. In addition, two of the four elements on the stove top did not work. The tenant produced a photograph showing that three dials were missing so that two elements and the grill could not be turned on.
The tenant messaged the landlord on 31 March 2024 to look at the stove and oven and he attended the following day. The tenant said that the landlord could not say when he could replace it because it was expensive. It was not repaired or replaced during the tenancy.
The flap of the cat door in the ranch slider broke. This resulted in an opening large enough for a cat to enter and exit as well as wind and weather. The tenant had also advised the landlord about this on 31 March 2024. There is email communication between the parties on 31 March 2024 when the landlord said that he would find a cat door and smoke alarms. The tenant asked if the cat door could be removed instead of replaced and the landlord advised that it was a good idea, and he would run it past insurance company before looking for open market vendors.
The cat door was never repaired or replaced. This was during the winter months when the tenant had told the landlord that the premises were cold. The cat door was in place when the landlord purchased the premises, so it is at least 11 years old.
The tenant had asked the landlord about the insulation in the home because there was no Healthy Homes compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement. In relation to the insulation the landlord said that there was a compliance statement when he purchased the house in 2013 but it probably expired. The landlord said that he obtained a compliance statement after the tenant left but no evidence was produced to support this.
There were lights at the premises that were not working. The landlord said that he fixed two of the four lights. He said that he needed to bring an electrician to look at the two that didn’t work but he never did so during the tenancy.
The tenant had asked the landlord to get a plumber to look at the sink in the bathroom which had been leaking. The landlord did not arrange for a plumber to attend.
The tenant issued the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy on 13 May 2024. The landlord did not remedy the breach in relation to maintenance. In addition to the above issues the tenant also referred in the notice to installing a blind, fixing the heat light in the bathroom, patching up two holes in the bathroom, fixing window latches and cupboard in kitchen, install insulation and remove belongings off the property.
The landlord has failed in his responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. His failure has resulted in a loss of amenity for the tenant in relation to the stove and oven and impacted on her living with the broken cat door and lack of insulation. The tenant lived at the premises with her three young children. The tenant had complained that the premises were cold, but the landlord’s response was that his previous tenant did not complain.
The landlord was aware of his obligation in relation to maintenance but failed to act. The failure to act had an impact on the tenant and her ability to live comfortably at the premises. It is in the public interest that landlords maintain premises during the tenancy.
I consider that an award of $3,775.00 for exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances. I have calculated this award by refunding 25% of the weekly rent ($175.00) over the 21 weeks and 4 days of the tenancy. Landlord failed to appoint an agent
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has explained why they believed the landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days. On 1 May 2024 the landlord sent an email to the tenant advising that he was travelling overseas that night and was returning at the end of June. The tenant said that the landlord was absent from New Zealand from 1 May until 28 June 2024 which amounts to 58 days. The landlord said that he returned to New Zealand some time in May 2024 but had no evidence to support that. I accept that the landlord was overseas from the beginning of May 2024 until the end of June 2024. As the landlord has not appointed an agent, 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 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.
There were maintenance issues that needed to be attended to when the landlord was overseas. In his email dated 1 May 2024 he said, “But I’m flying overseas tonight couldn’t get time to do what I intended to so I wont have time to do so until Im back end of June. You are free to look for an appropriate accommodation for yourself and your family. Ive had unforeseen expenses and this trip adding to it so I dont have the money and time to outsource it all.”
This email is evidence that the landlord intended to be overseas for longer than 21 consecutive days and did not intend to appoint an agent. It also confirms that he knew there were maintenance issues that he was unable to attend to.
In a later email dated 14 June the landlord says, “I’m in international roaming with no data.” This confirms that he was still overseas at that date which is 44 days after he left.
On 1 May 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that he needed to appoint an agent if he was leaving the country. The landlord’s response was, “Agent is going to make things more expensive than to sort them out efficiently.”
On 13 May 2024 the tenant issued the landlord with a 14-day notice in respect of his failure to appoint an agent. The landlord did not remedy the breach.
The absence of the landlord and the failure to appoint an agent impacted on the tenant and her ability to live in a warm and functioning home. The landlord knew of his obligation to appoint an agent but chose not to. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with the law in relation to appointing an agent so that any issues that arise can be dealt with.
I consider that an award of $750.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Landlord application
As the tenant has left the tenancy the landlord no longer requires an order terminating the tenancy. That claim is dismissed. Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears. A rent summary was filed with the application which records rent arrears at 4 July 2024.
That rent summary is incorrect because it records the rent at $720.00 whereas the tenancy agreement records the rent at $700.00 per week. Therefore, instead of the tenant owing $1,140.00 she owed $840.00.
The landlord said that the extra $20.00 was to cover water costs as agreed between the parties. However, the rent summary should only record rent payments and not outgoings.
I note that the landlord is not seeking payment for water rates from the tenant. Even if he was, the tenant advised that she had not received any water rates invoices until the parties attend mediation in July. I further note that a tenant is only responsible for water charges on the basis of consumption (see section 39(4)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
At the hearing the landlord did not produce an updated rent summary. He did not know how much, if anything, the tenant owed for rent arrears. He said the updated rent summary was on his home computer and he could provide it by the end of the day. I asked the landlord if he could obtain the rent summary over the adjournment, but he said it would take two hours to get to his home.
The landlord should have attended the hearing prepared to prosecute his claim for rent arrears. He has not done so and therefore I am unable to make an award for rent arrears. That claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The respondent/s]has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4934275 — net $4,552.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$3,775.00	Section 45
Exemplary damages: Landlord failing to appoint agent	$750.00	Landlord failing to appoint agent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,552.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,552.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Sunil Thalor must pay [The tenant/s] $4,552.00 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for a work order and exemplary damages.
The landlord applied for termination and rent arrears. Background
The tenancy began on 22 March 2024.
Since the applications were filed, the tenancy has come to an end. The tenant left the premises on 19 August 2024. Tenant application
As the tenant has left the premises the work order is no longer required. That claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
The landlord failed to maintain the premises in relation to the oven, a broken cat door, broken lighting and leaking. 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 oven at the premises did not work. In addition, two of the four elements on the stove top did not work. The tenant produced a photograph showing that three dials were missing so that two elements and the grill could not be turned on.
The tenant messaged the landlord on 31 March 2024 to look at the stove and oven and he attended the following day. The tenant said that the landlord could not say when he could replace it because it was expensive. It was not repaired or replaced during the tenancy.
The flap of the cat door in the ranch slider broke. This resulted in an opening large enough for a cat to enter and exit as well as wind and weather. The tenant had also advised the landlord about this on 31 March 2024. There is email communication between the parties on 31 March 2024 when the landlord said that he would find a cat door and smoke alarms. The tenant asked if the cat door could be removed instead of replaced and the landlord advised that it was a good idea, and he would run it past insurance company before looking for open market vendors.
The cat door was never repaired or replaced. This was during the winter months when the tenant had told the landlord that the premises were cold. The cat door was in place when the landlord purchased the premises, so it is at least 11 years old.
The tenant had asked the landlord about the insulation in the home because there was no Healthy Homes compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement. In relation to the insulation the landlord said that there was a compliance statement when he purchased the house in 2013 but it probably expired. The landlord said that he obtained a compliance statement after the tenant left but no evidence was produced to support this.
There were lights at the premises that were not working. The landlord said that he fixed two of the four lights. He said that he needed to bring an electrician to look at the two that didn’t work but he never did so during the tenancy.
The tenant had asked the landlord to get a plumber to look at the sink in the bathroom which had been leaking. The landlord did not arrange for a plumber to attend.
The tenant issued the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy on 13 May 2024. The landlord did not remedy the breach in relation to maintenance. In addition to the above issues the tenant also referred in the notice to installing a blind, fixing the heat light in the bathroom, patching up two holes in the bathroom, fixing window latches and cupboard in kitchen, install insulation and remove belongings off the property.
The landlord has failed in his responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. His failure has resulted in a loss of amenity for the tenant in relation to the stove and oven and impacted on her living with the broken cat door and lack of insulation. The tenant lived at the premises with her three young children. The tenant had complained that the premises were cold, but the landlord’s response was that his previous tenant did not complain.
The landlord was aware of his obligation in relation to maintenance but failed to act. The failure to act had an impact on the tenant and her ability to live comfortably at the premises. It is in the public interest that landlords maintain premises during the tenancy.
I consider that an award of $3,775.00 for exemplary damages is appropriate in the circumstances. I have calculated this award by refunding 25% of the weekly rent ($175.00) over the 21 weeks and 4 days of the tenancy. Landlord failed to appoint an agent
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has explained why they believed the landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days. On 1 May 2024 the landlord sent an email to the tenant advising that he was travelling overseas that night and was returning at the end of June. The tenant said that the landlord was absent from New Zealand from 1 May until 28 June 2024 which amounts to 58 days. The landlord said that he returned to New Zealand some time in May 2024 but had no evidence to support that. I accept that the landlord was overseas from the beginning of May 2024 until the end of June 2024. As the landlord has not appointed an agent, 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 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.
There were maintenance issues that needed to be attended to when the landlord was overseas. In his email dated 1 May 2024 he said, “But I’m flying overseas tonight couldn’t get time to do what I intended to so I wont have time to do so until Im back end of June. You are free to look for an appropriate accommodation for yourself and your family. Ive had unforeseen expenses and this trip adding to it so I dont have the money and time to outsource it all.”
This email is evidence that the landlord intended to be overseas for longer than 21 consecutive days and did not intend to appoint an agent. It also confirms that he knew there were maintenance issues that he was unable to attend to.
In a later email dated 14 June the landlord says, “I’m in international roaming with no data.” This confirms that he was still overseas at that date which is 44 days after he left.
On 1 May 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that he needed to appoint an agent if he was leaving the country. The landlord’s response was, “Agent is going to make things more expensive than to sort them out efficiently.”
On 13 May 2024 the tenant issued the landlord with a 14-day notice in respect of his failure to appoint an agent. The landlord did not remedy the breach.
The absence of the landlord and the failure to appoint an agent impacted on the tenant and her ability to live in a warm and functioning home. The landlord knew of his obligation to appoint an agent but chose not to. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with the law in relation to appointing an agent so that any issues that arise can be dealt with.
I consider that an award of $750.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Landlord application
As the tenant has left the tenancy the landlord no longer requires an order terminating the tenancy. That claim is dismissed. Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears. A rent summary was filed with the application which records rent arrears at 4 July 2024.
That rent summary is incorrect because it records the rent at $720.00 whereas the tenancy agreement records the rent at $700.00 per week. Therefore, instead of the tenant owing $1,140.00 she owed $840.00.
The landlord said that the extra $20.00 was to cover water costs as agreed between the parties. However, the rent summary should only record rent payments and not outgoings.
I note that the landlord is not seeking payment for water rates from the tenant. Even if he was, the tenant advised that she had not received any water rates invoices until the parties attend mediation in July. I further note that a tenant is only responsible for water charges on the basis of consumption (see section 39(4)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
At the hearing the landlord did not produce an updated rent summary. He did not know how much, if anything, the tenant owed for rent arrears. He said the updated rent summary was on his home computer and he could provide it by the end of the day. I asked the landlord if he could obtain the rent summary over the adjournment, but he said it would take two hours to get to his home.
The landlord should have attended the hearing prepared to prosecute his claim for rent arrears. He has not done so and therefore I am unable to make an award for rent arrears. That claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The respondent/s]has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934275 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 182 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934275 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 182 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions