How much money was awarded in case 4934523?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934523?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10865278-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4934523?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934523?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10865278-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Published tribunal order

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934523 — Exemplary damages at 290 Kai Iwi Valley Road, Kai Iwi, RD 4, Whanganui 4574

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4934523 about?

The tribunal order states: Shane Christiansen and Jake Christiansen as Agent for Shane Christiansen

Decided 23 Sept 2024 · Published 23 Sept 2024 · Application 4934523

Exemplary damages
State of repair
Cleanliness

Party names are redacted in the official published order.

Order

Shane Christiansen and Jake Christiansen as Agent for Shane Christiansen must pay [the tenant] $48,578.06 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlords did not. As I had no telephone contact information and they failed to attend by the video link emailed to them and posted to the address for service in the tenancy agreement, I was unable to reach them today.
I am satisfied that the landlords had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The tenant applied for compensation/general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of her tenancy. Background
[The tenant] says she and her two under school age children had nowhere to live and she was faced with the prospect of living in her car. She saw the rental premise at 290 Kai Iwi Valley Road, Kai Iwi, Whanganui for rent on Trade me marketplace and answered the advertisement. The pictures of the rental premise made it appear clean, neat and tidy.
The tenant says she rented the premise before viewing it, as she was desparate for a place to live.
The landlord sent the tenant a tenancy agreement via email, which she signed and returned. That tenancy agreement states the landlord is Shane Christiansen and his New Zealand based agent/property manager is his son Jake Christiansen (the landlords). There is an email address provided, no phone numbers for the landlord are provided and the physical address for service is the address of the rental premise.
The tenant was told the property owner lives in Australia, which is why his son was named in the tenancy agreement as his agent/property manager.
The tenant, through Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ), paid 4 weeks bond and 2 weeks rent in advance.
The property owner stated he had not received these payments and asked for them to be made again. WINZ asked for a copy of his bank records so it could confirm he had not received the payments, after which he confirmed that he had been confused and had found the missing payments.
When the tenant and her children arrived at the premise they found the following: a. The house was heavily infested with rats, mice, cockroaches and fleas; b. The house is on a lean and the sink hole for the septic tank is sinking; c. The septic tank was full and needed emptying; d. The septic tank was overflowing; e. The drains in the kitchen, toilet, bathroom and shower blocked every time the tenant used any water in the house and wastewater and raw sewage seeped out of all the drains on the property (inside and outside) and the tenant had to physically mash up the raw sewage, toilet paper, vegetables etc and hand dig this out of the drains; f. The smell from the septic tank and drains was so pungent the neighbours came over to enquire what the issue was almost as soon as they found out someone was living in the property; g. The power board had been tampered with and the wiring was illegal, unsafe and a fire hazard; h. The inbuilt fireplace did not work and filled the house with smoke; i. There were no locks on any of the doors; j. The doors would not shut as the house was not level as the foundations had sunk, due to the septic tank and drainage issues; k. The windows in all the bedrooms had cracks that had been taped up; l. The lounge window was smashed; m. All the doors and windows had large gaps that let draughts into the house; n. There was old furnishings and rubbish all through the inside and outside of the property; o. The property was filthy and untidy; p. There was rat and dog excrement throughout the house and heavy staining on the carpets; q. The toilet was broken and the pipe to it had burst and was taped up; r. The fences were broken from the neighbouring farmers stock and bulls kept coming onto the rental premise and scaring the tenant’s children; s. There was heavy damage to the house electrical wiring from rats gnawing through them, as such the only room with a working light was the lounge; t. The only working power point was on the stove; u. Only one stove element worked; v. The oven elements were broken and hung down inside the oven making it unsafe to use; w. The oven was old, rusty and fragile and not usable; x. There were holes in the back bedroom wall were the wood was so rotten that the wall boards were crumbling away and the tenant could see outside from inside; and y. Water poured through the gaps in the windows and the open door.
The tenant says she tried to contact the property manager/agent and the landlord to tell them about all the issues with the property but got no response. She finally contacted the landlord on Facebook messenger and had some video calls with him. Firstly, he told her his son, Jake would be in contact with her to remedy the issues, but Jake never came to the property, nor did he make contact with the tenant. After that the landlord always told her it was her responsibility to fix the issues she was raising and eventually he blocked her from being able to contact him via Facebook messenger. He never answered any emails, so none of the issues were addressed.
The tenant says she had nowhere else to go, so did what she could to make the house liveable for her and her 2-year-old and 3-year-old children. However, they were living in a premise that did not comply with the basic living standards in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) or the basis building codes and regulations.
When the tenant was finally able to find alternative accommodation, it was in Wellington. She had to move a long way away from her family and friends to find a safe and sanitary home for her and her children. Section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 breaches
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached several of his obligations under section 45(1) of the RTA.
Breaching any of the landlords s45 of the RTA 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.
Regardless of the number breaches of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA, they are still considered to be a breach of one section of the RTA. I can only make an order to the maximum of $7,200.00 for any breaches under section 45(1A), but I can consider that there are a number of breaches within that section.
General damages may be awarded for breaches of s45 of the RTA and these general come in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenant.
The award of exemplary damages for any proven breaches of s45 of the RTA will be quantified with the other s45 breaches later in this decision.
The general damages for any proven s45 of the RTA breach will be awarded under each separate s45 obligation heading set out below. A. Failure to provide the premises in reasonably clean and tidy state
The tenant claims the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, which requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenants gave evidence that the renal premise was dirty, had raw sewage seeping inside and outside, was rat/mice/cockroach and flea infested, had rodent and canine faeces and urine throughout it, had mouldy carpets/walls/ceilings, was damp and had old furnishings and rubbish strewn inside and outside.
The tenant’s phone had broken that contained all the photographs she had taken of the premise on entry. She could not afford to have the phone repaired to extract those images. She did however have messages that prove she has tried to contact the landlord and his agent/property manager about these numerous issues and that nothing was done. She has also proven she has spoken to WINZ about her predicament and the need to find new housing as soon as possible, because of the state of the premise.
The tenant has also proven that WINZ loan her $760.00 to order a skip bin in December 2022 to have the old furnishings and rubbish removed and that it also loaned her the money to hire a rug doctor and purchase the chemicals to clean the rat and dog faeces and urine out of the carpet.
I am satisfied that the premises were far from reasonably clean from the start of the tenancy on 11 October 2022 right up to 7 May 2024 when the tenant finally found new accommodation she could afford. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state during that period.
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 lack of cleanliness was obvious. The premises were very far from reasonably clean. The tenant had tried to tell the property manager and the owner of cleanliness and sanitation issues. It follows that the landlord’s breach was intentional.
The tenant says the landlord refused to offer her a rent rebate for the period she have lived in filthy and unsanitary premises, contaminated by wastewater, raw sewage and rodent/canine excrement as well as damp and mouldy carpet, ceilings and walls.
The tenant had to clean the premises herself with the minimal cleaners she could afford as she did not have enough spare money to purchase better cleaning products.
The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of their obligations under the RTA, the uncleanliness distressed the tenant and her two young children greatly, the public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I will address the general damages and exemplary damages as global sums at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. B. Failure to maintain
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be ”.1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2. However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 . 34. There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Under s45(1)(c) the landlord must also comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes a requirement for the landlord to comply with s15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the rental premise is free from dampness and s7(2)(b) of the HIR’s which requires that the kitchen in a rental premise shall have adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.
The tenant has provided the following evidence that the rental premise did not meet the required s45(1)(b) or (c) requirements in that for the duration of the tenancy: a. The house was heavily infested with rats, mice, cockroaches and fleas and the tenant had to pay for rat bait and rat/mouse traps as well as flea bombs to try to eradicate the vermin but the rat infestation was so severe that she was unable to stop the rats living in the ceilings, walls and cupboards in the house; b. The house is on a lean and the sink hole for the septic tank is sinking. This meant the doors and windows to the house would not open if they were already shut and would not shut if they were already open; c. The septic tank was full and needed emptying, the neighbour eventually paid to have the septic tank cleaned out as the stench was carrying across paddocks to their farm; d. The drains in the kitchen, toilet, bathroom and shower blocked every time the tenant used any water in the house and wastewater and raw sewage seeped out of all the drains on the property (inside and outside) and the tenant had to physically mash up the raw sewage, toilet paper, vegetables etc and hand dig this out of the drains; e. The smell from the septic tank and drains was so pungent the neighbours came over to enquire what the issue was almost as soon as they found out someone was living in the property; f. The tenant was informed by the owner’s cousin that the power board had been tampered with by the owner’s family to try and reduce the costs of power. An electrician came to investigate the power issues and confirmed the wiring was illegal, unsafe and a fire hazard; g. The only light in the house that worked was in the lounge, so that is where the tenant and her children slept; h. The inbuilt fireplace did not work and filled the house with smoke if lit. In addition, birds flew down the chimney and into the fire and draughts came through the chimney space; i. There were no locks on any of the doors; j. The doors would not shut as the house was not level as the foundations had sunk, due to the septic tank and drainage issues; k. The windows in all the bedrooms had cracks that had been taped up, that let in draughts; l. The lounge window was smashed and let in draughts; m. All the doors and windows had large gaps around them that let draughts into the house; n. The toilet was broken and the pipe to it had burst and was taped up; o. The fences were broken from the neighbouring farmers stock and bulls kept coming onto the rental premise and scaring the tenant’s children; p. There was heavy damage to the house electrical wiring from rats gnawing through them, as such the only room with a working light was the lounge; q. The only working power point was on the stove; r. Only one small stove element worked; s. The oven elements were broken and hung down inside the oven making it unsafe to use; t. The oven was old, rusty and fragile and not usable for cooking; u. Water poured through the gaps in the windows and the open door when it rained; v. There were holes in the back bedroom wall where the wood was so rotten that the wall boards were crumbling away and the tenant could see outside from inside; and w. The walls, ceilings and floors/carpet throughout the house were full of black mould from the leaks and the dampness but the kitchen, bathroom, toilet and lounge were the worse.
The tenant also proved she had an electrician and the power provider come to look at the wiring and power meter/fuse box issues and was informed that there was nothing they could do to address these issues until the rat infestation was addressed as the rats were just eating through the wiring and causing further electrical issues.
I am satisfied that the premises were not provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair nor did the premise comply with the relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes a failure to comply with s15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the rental premise is free from dampness and s7(2)(b) of the HIR’s which requires that the kitchen in a rental premise shall have adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair for the duration of the tenancy, being 11 October 2022 to 7 May 2024 (82 weeks).
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 had tried to tell the property manager and the owner of repair and maintenance issues and had also tried to get other members of the owner’s family that dropped into the premises unannounced from time to time, to address the numerous urgent and significant repair and maintenance issues with the house, many that were posing significant health issues for the tenant and her children. It follows that the landlord’s ongoing breaches were intentional.
The tenant says the landlord refused to have the power issues fixed an instead sent a family member, who told the tenant he belongs to the Black Power chapter in Christchurch, to come and give her a hiding for not getting the power box and fuse box repaired as this family member had been told the tenant had caused the damage. Once the tenant showed this family member the messages between her and the owner in relation to the power box issue and the communications, she had with one of the owner’s cousins, the Black Power member let her and her children be, but she says she was terrified by the visit.
The tenant tried to repair what she could, which was limited, as she had no money and was living on a minimal benefit, after deduction for the loan she had taken out for the skip bin hire and cleaning products.
The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of his obligations under s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA and this left the tenant and her very young children living in unlawful conditions and the public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I will address the general damages and exemplary damages as global sums at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. C. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenant claims the rental premise had no working smoke alarms when she moved in and none were installed during the tenancy.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA and that the landlord should have checked that the house had working smoke alarms before the tenancy stated.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord failed to provide working and compliant smoke alarms in the premise and subjected the tenant and her two young children to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives. Especially considering the state of the fuse box and power box and the electrical wiring; b. the tenant and her young children were subjected to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives and should have been able to rely on the landlord to meet its obligations under the RTA and associated regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and risk to their health and wellbeing; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide fully functioning and compliant smoke alarms to tenants and to record details about these accurately in a written tenancy agreement.
Again, the landlord’s intent was one of disregard of his obligations under s45(1)(ba) of the RTA and public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.
I will address the general damages and exemplary damages as global sums at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. D. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached his the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the 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.
This tenancy commenced on 11 October 2022, as such the landlord had 90 days to ensure the rental premise met all the healthy homes standards and he did not. Insulation standard
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The photographs the tenant has of the rental premise prove it did not meet any of the insulation standards. What insulation may have been in place at some point was severely damaged by the rodent infestation in the walls and ceilings and there was no evidence of underfloor insulation.
There is no evidence of the landlord having sought any exemption to this requirement. Heating standard
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 tenant has provided photographs that show the only source of hearing was a free-standing fireplace that was not functional. It blew smoke throughout the house if lit and the chimney appeared to be blocked with something that smelt like a rotting animal/bird corpse of some sort.
The tenant says she used the oven as a source of heating as that was all she had but that she feared the oven was a fire risk if used for this purpose, so only used it when necessary.
There is no evidence of the landlord having sought any exemption to this requirement. Ventilation standard
[The tenant] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has provided proof there was no functioning externally venting extractor fans in the bathrooms or kitchen and many of the windows did not open or would not shut.
There is no evidence of the landlord having sought any exemption to this requirement. Draught stopping standard
[The tenant] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has provided evidence that proves the house was full of significant and numerous sources of draughts. A number of the windows had large gaps around them and the doors did not shut. The tenant says the house was very cold, damp and draughty as a result and caused her and her children health issues. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
[The tenant] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has produced evidence that the rental premise had significant septic tank and drainage issues that resulted in wastewater and raw sewage flooding the toilet and bathroom areas inside, causing more rot to the floorboards and walls. In addition, the tenant had to hand scoop raw sewage and other wastewater from the drains on a frequent basis.
There is no evidence of the landlord having an exemption to this HHS obligation. Section 45 exemplary damage quantum
I am satisfied that it would be appropriate to award exemplary damages of $7,200.00 for the landlord’s numerous and serious s45(1) of the RTA breaches, being 100 percent of the maximum quantum available under this head of claim, because: a. The landlord has intentionally subjected the tenant and her family to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives and failed to provide them with a clean, safe and sanitary place to live that was warm, dry, well-ventilated adequate with adequate heating and an adequate and legally compliant way to heat and cook food for the duration of their tenancy; b. the tenants were subjected to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives and should have been able to rely on the landlord to meet his s45(1)(a),(b),(ba),(bb) and (c) obligations under the RTA and associated regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and risk to their health and wellbeing they suffered because of these numerous intentional breaches; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to meet all of their s45(1) of the RTA obligations to tenants.
I also make an order for the landlord to pay a sum in general damages of $29,260.00 which is a full rent rebate for the duration of the tenancy as the tenant and her family were living in an unsafe and unsanitary home that was not compliant with any of the basic living condition requirements set out in the RTA or the HIR or in many other building codes and regulations. The tenants lived with faulty wiring and the risks associated with no smoke alarms and without adequate heating in a home that the tenant says was cold, mouldy and damp. In addition, the doors would not close and anyone could just walk into the house, and did. This general damage order also recognises the general stress and inconvenience the tenant suffered because of the multiple breaches of the RTA, HIR and other building codes and regulations. This is a rent rebate $380.00 per week from 11 October 2022 to 7 May 2024.
I have also reimbursed the tenant for the cost of the skip bin, the hiring costs of the rug doctor, the rug doctor cleaning solution and the cost of having an electrician look at the fuse box and power meter. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
[The tenant] claims the landlord has breached her privacy and harassed her.
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 tenant says that 2 weeks after 4 November 2022 (one of her children’s birthday’s) the landlord had a Black Power member from his family come to visit the tenant, without any notice, in response to her trying to get the power situation in the house sorted out before her child’s birthday. She says the landlord blamed her for the state of the electrical wiring, the fuse box and power meter so he sent a family member from Christchurch to intimidate her and to try and get her to pay to have the electrical issues fixed.
The tenant had raised the power issue with the landlord’s cousin (Helena Rattray), who was also asked to go to see the property by the landlord and who popped in unannounced around April 2023 when she was visiting her whāngai nan that lived next door to the tenant.
The tenant says that another elderly man that was related to the landlord also came around in late 2023 to carry out an inspection for the landlord, again unannounced, and he intimidated and scared the tenant and her children.
The tenant said that from time to time at other stages of her tenancy random persons would show up and come inside the property that were related to the owner and they did not give her an explanation for why they were there. She cannot remember all the dates these unlawful entries occurred.
I find the landlord has 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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord ought reasonably to have known the tenant would be uncomfortable with him repeatedly sending his whanau to the premises uninvited and lingering there or carrying out inspections or tasks that he had not informed the tenant they were going to do; b. The tenant felt intimidated and harassed and like she could not relax at her home as the owner and his whanau were disrespectful of her desire for peace, privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property she was paying rent for; c. it is in the interests of the tenant 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.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly.

Did the landlord meet his s19 of the RTA duties on receipt of the bond?

[The tenant] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and did not provide her with a receipt for the bond. Refer to section 19(1)(a) and (b) of the RTA.
Breaching any s19(1) of the RTA obligations 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. Failure to lodge the bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1)(b) 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 tenant has proven the landlord has never lodged the bond, either during the tenancy or as at the date of today’s hearing. The landlord has been aware since the tenant’s lodged their Tribunal application on 8 July 2024, that this was one of the tenants claims, but he still made no attempt to remedy his breach.
As of today, the landlord has not lodged the bond for 101 weeks 6 days after receiving it a few days prior to 11 October 2022. I find he has 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.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after his receipt of it. The landlord had access to a legislatively compliant tenancy agreement from the Tenancy Services website and that website also contains bond forms and other such resources that he could have used to inform him of what to do with the bond. The obligations placed on a landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for over 101 weeks and 6 days; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants’ money has not been protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 101 weeks and 6 days and it should have been. In addition, it is still not protected by the Bond Centre and remains in the hands of the landlord that has intentionally failed to provide the tenant with enough contact information for her to be successful in pursuing him for repayment of her bond money; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s continuing breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.

Did the landlord provide the tenants with a receipt for the bond paid?

The tenant claims the landlord has not issued her with a receipt for the bond she paid a few days before her tenancy started on 11 October 2022 ($1,520.00) and two week’s rent paid in advance of $760.00.
A landlord must provide the tenants with a written receipt for the bond paid. See section 19(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 19(1)(a) of the RTA states: “Where any person pays to the landlord, or to any other person on behalf of the landlord, any amount by way of bond (whether the amount is for the whole or part of the bond), the following provisions shall apply: (a) the person who receives the payment shall forthwith give to the payer a written receipt, signed by that person, showing— (i) the address of the premises to which the payment relates; and (ii) the amount and nature of the payment; and (iii) the date of the payment; and (iv) the name of the payer (if known to the person who receives the payment)”.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay exemplary damages because: a. The landlord’s Facebook messenger communications suggest he intentionally failed to give the tenant proper contact information for him and his property manager/agent, and did not issue the tenant with a receipt for the bond, in order to do what he could to evade his New Zealand taxation obligations and his obligations to the tenant; b. The tenant is entitled to receive a receipt for her bond, and this was more necessary given the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The tenant has had to pay off this bond and her next bond to WINZ in instalments out of her benefit which places her under undue financial stress and pressure; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s ongoing and intentional breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations provide a receipt for the bond received for the protection of their interests.
Given the serious risk to the tenant of the landlord’s failure to provide her with a receipt for the bond, coupled with the landlord’s ongoing breach of its obligation to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, and the landlord’s lengthy refusal to repay the bond, and two weeks rent in advance he owes to the tenant, I find it appropriate to award the tenants 100 percent of the maximum exemplary damages available for the two section 19(1) of the RTA breaches, being $1,500.00.
I also find it fair and reasonable to award the tenant compensation of $20.00 per week for the 101 weeks and 6 day period from 11 October 2022 to 23 September 2024 for the landlord’s failure to receipt, lodge and refund the tenants’ bond. This totals an award of $802.86.
I consider this compensation to be appropriate to recognise the stress, uncertainty and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to provide the tenants with their bond and rent overpayment refund for over 40 weeks and 1 day, and the ongoing stress of knowing the bond monies are not with a safe third independent party on trust for them and that they had to come to the Tribunal to get their money refunded to them with the only proof of payment being some WeChat messages and bank records. Failure to ensure the tenancy agreement contains the statutorily required information Contact information for the landlord
[The tenant] claims the landlord, in breach of his s13A of the RTA obligations, has not included in the tenancy agreement (refer to s13A)(1) (a),(aa) and (f) of the RTA): a. The landlord’s full name and contact address in Australia or the contact address of his NZ agent/property manager; b. the landlord’s and his agent/property manager’s contact mobile telephone numbers; and c. A valid address for service for the landlord and his agent/property manager, (other than the tenancy address).
A landlord who fails to ensure that the tenancy agreement includes the information specified in subsection (1)(a) to (ab), (c) to (f), and (i) to (p) commits an unlawful act.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1AAA)and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the landlord intentionally failed to provide this information to make himself and his agent/property manager unreachable. The only contact information the tenant had for the owner and his agent/property manager was a single email address. She never had any contact with the property manager/agent son and was reduced to contacting the owner via Facebook messenger until h=she was blocked from being ablet to contact him this way when she tried to enforce her rights under the RTA.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay exemplary damages because: a. The landlord’s Facebook messenger communications suggest he intentionally failed to give the tenant proper contact information for him and his property manager/agent; b. The tenant is entitled to have adequate contact information for the owner and/or his nominated agent so that she could communicate any issues and concerns in a timely manner and have these issue and concerns addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s intentional breach of his obligations to provide adequate contact information to the tenant; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations provide adequate contact information to their tenants. Healthy homes standards and insurance information
A landlord must also include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) 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); 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 premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
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.
Section 13A(2) of the RTA also requires the landlord to provide certain information about the insurance he holds on the property and the insurance excess.
Breaching these obligations without a lawful excuse is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Shane Christiansen failed to provide any of the 13A(1A), (1(B),(1C), (1CA) or (2) of the RTA information in the tenancy agreement. I find Shane Christiansen and Jake Christiansen as agent for Shan Christiansen has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if 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 find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a further $750.00 exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes an insurance information with a written tenancy agreement; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to receive information about whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements. This was particularly important in this case as the landlord was aware the tenants was not able to view the premise before signing up for the tenancy and that she was a vulnerable young mother with no other options at that time; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have healthy homes compliance and insurance information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non-compliant premise.
I find that 100 percent of the maximum available exemplary damage quantum of $750.00 is appropriate given the tenant has proven the premise was not fully healthy homes compliant and she was denied the opportunity to forgo this rental offered to her because it did not meet the healthy homes standards and the smoke alarm regulations.
I also find that the landlord intentionally failed to provide this HHS information so as to deceive the tenant as he did not want her to know the true state of the premise before getting the four weeks bond and two weeks rent in advance from WINZ before the tenant found out the true state of the premise she had rented and the high levels of statutory non-compliance with the RTA, HIR and other relevant enactments and regulations. Locks
Section 46(1) of the RTA confirms the landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
The tenant has proven the doors to the rental premise were not able to be closed nor were they lockable.
Failure to comply with section 46(1) of the RTA is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award a tenant a maximum penalty of $1,500.00 exemplary damages.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1500.00 exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by to provide the tenants with lockable doors; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to be provided with lockable doors to secure her home; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have lockable doors to their rental premise.
I find that 100 percent of the maximum available exemplary damage quantum is appropriate given the tenant has proven the premise was not lockable in addition to her not being able to shut the external doors at all due to the foundations of the house sinking. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application if he/she/they have been wholly or substantially successful in his/her/their claim.
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with her claims, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details, but not of the tenancy address as she considers it important the public is aware of this premise so as not to allow the landlord to take advantage of other vulnerable tenants.
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 tenant has substantially succeeded in this proceeding, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details are ordered.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlords did not. As I had no telephone contact information and they failed to attend by the video link emailed to them and posted to the address for service in the tenancy agreement, I was unable to reach them today.

I am satisfied that the landlords had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.

The tenant applied for compensation/general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of her tenancy. Background

[The tenant] says she and her two under school age children had nowhere to live and she was faced with the prospect of living in her car. She saw the rental premise at 290 Kai Iwi Valley Road, Kai Iwi, Whanganui for rent on Trade me marketplace and answered the advertisement. The pictures of the rental premise made it appear clean, neat and tidy.

The tenant says she rented the premise before viewing it, as she was desparate for a place to live.

The landlord sent the tenant a tenancy agreement via email, which she signed and returned. That tenancy agreement states the landlord is Shane Christiansen and his New Zealand based agent/property manager is his son Jake Christiansen (the landlords). There is an email address provided, no phone numbers for the landlord are provided and the physical address for service is the address of the rental premise.

The tenant was told the property owner lives in Australia, which is why his son was named in the tenancy agreement as his agent/property manager.

The tenant, through Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ), paid 4 weeks bond and 2 weeks rent in advance.

The property owner stated he had not received these payments and asked for them to be made again. WINZ asked for a copy of his bank records so it could confirm he had not received the payments, after which he confirmed that he had been confused and had found the missing payments.

When the tenant and her children arrived at the premise they found the following: a. The house was heavily infested with rats, mice, cockroaches and fleas; b. The house is on a lean and the sink hole for the septic tank is sinking; c. The septic tank was full and needed emptying; d. The septic tank was overflowing; e. The drains in the kitchen, toilet, bathroom and shower blocked every time the tenant used any water in the house and wastewater and raw sewage seeped out of all the drains on the property (inside and outside) and the tenant had to physically mash up the raw sewage, toilet paper, vegetables etc and hand dig this out of the drains; f. The smell from the septic tank and drains was so pungent the neighbours came over to enquire what the issue was almost as soon as they found out someone was living in the property; g. The power board had been tampered with and the wiring was illegal, unsafe and a fire hazard; h. The inbuilt fireplace did not work and filled the house with smoke; i. There were no locks on any of the doors; j. The doors would not shut as the house was not level as the foundations had sunk, due to the septic tank and drainage issues; k. The windows in all the bedrooms had cracks that had been taped up; l. The lounge window was smashed; m. All the doors and windows had large gaps that let draughts into the house; n. There was old furnishings and rubbish all through the inside and outside of the property; o. The property was filthy and untidy; p. There was rat and dog excrement throughout the house and heavy staining on the carpets; q. The toilet was broken and the pipe to it had burst and was taped up; r. The fences were broken from the neighbouring farmers stock and bulls kept coming onto the rental premise and scaring the tenant’s children; s. There was heavy damage to the house electrical wiring from rats gnawing through them, as such the only room with a working light was the lounge; t. The only working power point was on the stove; u. Only one stove element worked; v. The oven elements were broken and hung down inside the oven making it unsafe to use; w. The oven was old, rusty and fragile and not usable; x. There were holes in the back bedroom wall were the wood was so rotten that the wall boards were crumbling away and the tenant could see outside from inside; and y. Water poured through the gaps in the windows and the open door.

The tenant says she tried to contact the property manager/agent and the landlord to tell them about all the issues with the property but got no response. She finally contacted the landlord on Facebook messenger and had some video calls with him. Firstly, he told her his son, Jake would be in contact with her to remedy the issues, but Jake never came to the property, nor did he make contact with the tenant. After that the landlord always told her it was her responsibility to fix the issues she was raising and eventually he blocked her from being able to contact him via Facebook messenger. He never answered any emails, so none of the issues were addressed.

The tenant says she had nowhere else to go, so did what she could to make the house liveable for her and her 2-year-old and 3-year-old children. However, they were living in a premise that did not comply with the basic living standards in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) or the basis building codes and regulations.

When the tenant was finally able to find alternative accommodation, it was in Wellington. She had to move a long way away from her family and friends to find a safe and sanitary home for her and her children. Section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 breaches

[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached several of his obligations under section 45(1) of the RTA.

Breaching any of the landlords s45 of the RTA 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.

Regardless of the number breaches of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA, they are still considered to be a breach of one section of the RTA. I can only make an order to the maximum of $7,200.00 for any breaches under section 45(1A), but I can consider that there are a number of breaches within that section.

General damages may be awarded for breaches of s45 of the RTA and these general come in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenant.

The award of exemplary damages for any proven breaches of s45 of the RTA will be quantified with the other s45 breaches later in this decision.

The general damages for any proven s45 of the RTA breach will be awarded under each separate s45 obligation heading set out below. A. Failure to provide the premises in reasonably clean and tidy state

The tenant claims the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the RTA, which requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

The tenants gave evidence that the renal premise was dirty, had raw sewage seeping inside and outside, was rat/mice/cockroach and flea infested, had rodent and canine faeces and urine throughout it, had mouldy carpets/walls/ceilings, was damp and had old furnishings and rubbish strewn inside and outside.

The tenant’s phone had broken that contained all the photographs she had taken of the premise on entry. She could not afford to have the phone repaired to extract those images. She did however have messages that prove she has tried to contact the landlord and his agent/property manager about these numerous issues and that nothing was done. She has also proven she has spoken to WINZ about her predicament and the need to find new housing as soon as possible, because of the state of the premise.

The tenant has also proven that WINZ loan her $760.00 to order a skip bin in December 2022 to have the old furnishings and rubbish removed and that it also loaned her the money to hire a rug doctor and purchase the chemicals to clean the rat and dog faeces and urine out of the carpet.

I am satisfied that the premises were far from reasonably clean from the start of the tenancy on 11 October 2022 right up to 7 May 2024 when the tenant finally found new accommodation she could afford. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state during that period.

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 lack of cleanliness was obvious. The premises were very far from reasonably clean. The tenant had tried to tell the property manager and the owner of cleanliness and sanitation issues. It follows that the landlord’s breach was intentional.

The tenant says the landlord refused to offer her a rent rebate for the period she have lived in filthy and unsanitary premises, contaminated by wastewater, raw sewage and rodent/canine excrement as well as damp and mouldy carpet, ceilings and walls.

The tenant had to clean the premises herself with the minimal cleaners she could afford as she did not have enough spare money to purchase better cleaning products.

The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of their obligations under the RTA, the uncleanliness distressed the tenant and her two young children greatly, the public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.

I will address the general damages and exemplary damages as global sums at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. B. Failure to maintain

Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be ”.1

There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.

A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2. However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 . 34. There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].

Under s45(1)(c) the landlord must also comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes a requirement for the landlord to comply with s15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the rental premise is free from dampness and s7(2)(b) of the HIR’s which requires that the kitchen in a rental premise shall have adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.

The tenant has provided the following evidence that the rental premise did not meet the required s45(1)(b) or (c) requirements in that for the duration of the tenancy: a. The house was heavily infested with rats, mice, cockroaches and fleas and the tenant had to pay for rat bait and rat/mouse traps as well as flea bombs to try to eradicate the vermin but the rat infestation was so severe that she was unable to stop the rats living in the ceilings, walls and cupboards in the house; b. The house is on a lean and the sink hole for the septic tank is sinking. This meant the doors and windows to the house would not open if they were already shut and would not shut if they were already open; c. The septic tank was full and needed emptying, the neighbour eventually paid to have the septic tank cleaned out as the stench was carrying across paddocks to their farm; d. The drains in the kitchen, toilet, bathroom and shower blocked every time the tenant used any water in the house and wastewater and raw sewage seeped out of all the drains on the property (inside and outside) and the tenant had to physically mash up the raw sewage, toilet paper, vegetables etc and hand dig this out of the drains; e. The smell from the septic tank and drains was so pungent the neighbours came over to enquire what the issue was almost as soon as they found out someone was living in the property; f. The tenant was informed by the owner’s cousin that the power board had been tampered with by the owner’s family to try and reduce the costs of power. An electrician came to investigate the power issues and confirmed the wiring was illegal, unsafe and a fire hazard; g. The only light in the house that worked was in the lounge, so that is where the tenant and her children slept; h. The inbuilt fireplace did not work and filled the house with smoke if lit. In addition, birds flew down the chimney and into the fire and draughts came through the chimney space; i. There were no locks on any of the doors; j. The doors would not shut as the house was not level as the foundations had sunk, due to the septic tank and drainage issues; k. The windows in all the bedrooms had cracks that had been taped up, that let in draughts; l. The lounge window was smashed and let in draughts; m. All the doors and windows had large gaps around them that let draughts into the house; n. The toilet was broken and the pipe to it had burst and was taped up; o. The fences were broken from the neighbouring farmers stock and bulls kept coming onto the rental premise and scaring the tenant’s children; p. There was heavy damage to the house electrical wiring from rats gnawing through them, as such the only room with a working light was the lounge; q. The only working power point was on the stove; r. Only one small stove element worked; s. The oven elements were broken and hung down inside the oven making it unsafe to use; t. The oven was old, rusty and fragile and not usable for cooking; u. Water poured through the gaps in the windows and the open door when it rained; v. There were holes in the back bedroom wall where the wood was so rotten that the wall boards were crumbling away and the tenant could see outside from inside; and w. The walls, ceilings and floors/carpet throughout the house were full of black mould from the leaks and the dampness but the kitchen, bathroom, toilet and lounge were the worse.

The tenant also proved she had an electrician and the power provider come to look at the wiring and power meter/fuse box issues and was informed that there was nothing they could do to address these issues until the rat infestation was addressed as the rats were just eating through the wiring and causing further electrical issues.

I am satisfied that the premises were not provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair nor did the premise comply with the relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes a failure to comply with s15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the rental premise is free from dampness and s7(2)(b) of the HIR’s which requires that the kitchen in a rental premise shall have adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.

I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair for the duration of the tenancy, being 11 October 2022 to 7 May 2024 (82 weeks).

The tenant had tried to tell the property manager and the owner of repair and maintenance issues and had also tried to get other members of the owner’s family that dropped into the premises unannounced from time to time, to address the numerous urgent and significant repair and maintenance issues with the house, many that were posing significant health issues for the tenant and her children. It follows that the landlord’s ongoing breaches were intentional.

The tenant says the landlord refused to have the power issues fixed an instead sent a family member, who told the tenant he belongs to the Black Power chapter in Christchurch, to come and give her a hiding for not getting the power box and fuse box repaired as this family member had been told the tenant had caused the damage. Once the tenant showed this family member the messages between her and the owner in relation to the power box issue and the communications, she had with one of the owner’s cousins, the Black Power member let her and her children be, but she says she was terrified by the visit.

The tenant tried to repair what she could, which was limited, as she had no money and was living on a minimal benefit, after deduction for the loan she had taken out for the skip bin hire and cleaning products.

The landlord’s intent was one of disregard of his obligations under s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA and this left the tenant and her very young children living in unlawful conditions and the public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.

I will address the general damages and exemplary damages as global sums at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. C. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations

Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.

The tenant claims the rental premise had no working smoke alarms when she moved in and none were installed during the tenancy.

Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.

I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA and that the landlord should have checked that the house had working smoke alarms before the tenancy stated.

I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord failed to provide working and compliant smoke alarms in the premise and subjected the tenant and her two young children to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives. Especially considering the state of the fuse box and power box and the electrical wiring; b. the tenant and her young children were subjected to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives and should have been able to rely on the landlord to meet its obligations under the RTA and associated regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and risk to their health and wellbeing; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide fully functioning and compliant smoke alarms to tenants and to record details about these accurately in a written tenancy agreement.

Again, the landlord’s intent was one of disregard of his obligations under s45(1)(ba) of the RTA and public interest favours exemplary damages to punish and deter such conduct.

I will address the general damages and exemplary damages as global sums at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this Order. D. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards

[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached his the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the 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.

This tenancy commenced on 11 October 2022, as such the landlord had 90 days to ensure the rental premise met all the healthy homes standards and he did not. Insulation standard

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

The photographs the tenant has of the rental premise prove it did not meet any of the insulation standards. What insulation may have been in place at some point was severely damaged by the rodent infestation in the walls and ceilings and there was no evidence of underfloor insulation.

There is no evidence of the landlord having sought any exemption to this requirement. Heating standard

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 tenant has provided photographs that show the only source of hearing was a free-standing fireplace that was not functional. It blew smoke throughout the house if lit and the chimney appeared to be blocked with something that smelt like a rotting animal/bird corpse of some sort.

The tenant says she used the oven as a source of heating as that was all she had but that she feared the oven was a fire risk if used for this purpose, so only used it when necessary.

There is no evidence of the landlord having sought any exemption to this requirement. Ventilation standard

[The tenant] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The tenant has provided proof there was no functioning externally venting extractor fans in the bathrooms or kitchen and many of the windows did not open or would not shut.

There is no evidence of the landlord having sought any exemption to this requirement. Draught stopping standard

[The tenant] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The tenant has provided evidence that proves the house was full of significant and numerous sources of draughts. A number of the windows had large gaps around them and the doors did not shut. The tenant says the house was very cold, damp and draughty as a result and caused her and her children health issues. Moisture ingress and drainage standard

[The tenant] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The tenant has produced evidence that the rental premise had significant septic tank and drainage issues that resulted in wastewater and raw sewage flooding the toilet and bathroom areas inside, causing more rot to the floorboards and walls. In addition, the tenant had to hand scoop raw sewage and other wastewater from the drains on a frequent basis.

There is no evidence of the landlord having an exemption to this HHS obligation. Section 45 exemplary damage quantum

I am satisfied that it would be appropriate to award exemplary damages of $7,200.00 for the landlord’s numerous and serious s45(1) of the RTA breaches, being 100 percent of the maximum quantum available under this head of claim, because: a. The landlord has intentionally subjected the tenant and her family to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives and failed to provide them with a clean, safe and sanitary place to live that was warm, dry, well-ventilated adequate with adequate heating and an adequate and legally compliant way to heat and cook food for the duration of their tenancy; b. the tenants were subjected to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives and should have been able to rely on the landlord to meet his s45(1)(a),(b),(ba),(bb) and (c) obligations under the RTA and associated regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and risk to their health and wellbeing they suffered because of these numerous intentional breaches; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to meet all of their s45(1) of the RTA obligations to tenants.

I also make an order for the landlord to pay a sum in general damages of $29,260.00 which is a full rent rebate for the duration of the tenancy as the tenant and her family were living in an unsafe and unsanitary home that was not compliant with any of the basic living condition requirements set out in the RTA or the HIR or in many other building codes and regulations. The tenants lived with faulty wiring and the risks associated with no smoke alarms and without adequate heating in a home that the tenant says was cold, mouldy and damp. In addition, the doors would not close and anyone could just walk into the house, and did. This general damage order also recognises the general stress and inconvenience the tenant suffered because of the multiple breaches of the RTA, HIR and other building codes and regulations. This is a rent rebate $380.00 per week from 11 October 2022 to 7 May 2024.

I have also reimbursed the tenant for the cost of the skip bin, the hiring costs of the rug doctor, the rug doctor cleaning solution and the cost of having an electrician look at the fuse box and power meter. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment

[The tenant] claims the landlord has breached her privacy and harassed her.

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 tenant says that 2 weeks after 4 November 2022 (one of her children’s birthday’s) the landlord had a Black Power member from his family come to visit the tenant, without any notice, in response to her trying to get the power situation in the house sorted out before her child’s birthday. She says the landlord blamed her for the state of the electrical wiring, the fuse box and power meter so he sent a family member from Christchurch to intimidate her and to try and get her to pay to have the electrical issues fixed.

The tenant had raised the power issue with the landlord’s cousin (Helena Rattray), who was also asked to go to see the property by the landlord and who popped in unannounced around April 2023 when she was visiting her whāngai nan that lived next door to the tenant.

The tenant says that another elderly man that was related to the landlord also came around in late 2023 to carry out an inspection for the landlord, again unannounced, and he intimidated and scared the tenant and her children.

The tenant said that from time to time at other stages of her tenancy random persons would show up and come inside the property that were related to the owner and they did not give her an explanation for why they were there. She cannot remember all the dates these unlawful entries occurred.

I find the landlord has 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.

I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord ought reasonably to have known the tenant would be uncomfortable with him repeatedly sending his whanau to the premises uninvited and lingering there or carrying out inspections or tasks that he had not informed the tenant they were going to do; b. The tenant felt intimidated and harassed and like she could not relax at her home as the owner and his whanau were disrespectful of her desire for peace, privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property she was paying rent for; c. it is in the interests of the tenant 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.

I make an order for the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly.

Did the landlord meet his s19 of the RTA duties on receipt of the bond?

[The tenant] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and did not provide her with a receipt for the bond. Refer to section 19(1)(a) and (b) of the RTA.

Breaching any s19(1) of the RTA obligations 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. Failure to lodge the bond

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1)(b) 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 tenant has proven the landlord has never lodged the bond, either during the tenancy or as at the date of today’s hearing. The landlord has been aware since the tenant’s lodged their Tribunal application on 8 July 2024, that this was one of the tenants claims, but he still made no attempt to remedy his breach.

As of today, the landlord has not lodged the bond for 101 weeks 6 days after receiving it a few days prior to 11 October 2022. I find he has committed an unlawful act.

Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after his receipt of it. The landlord had access to a legislatively compliant tenancy agreement from the Tenancy Services website and that website also contains bond forms and other such resources that he could have used to inform him of what to do with the bond. The obligations placed on a landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.

I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for over 101 weeks and 6 days; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants’ money has not been protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 101 weeks and 6 days and it should have been. In addition, it is still not protected by the Bond Centre and remains in the hands of the landlord that has intentionally failed to provide the tenant with enough contact information for her to be successful in pursuing him for repayment of her bond money; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s continuing breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.

Did the landlord provide the tenants with a receipt for the bond paid?

The tenant claims the landlord has not issued her with a receipt for the bond she paid a few days before her tenancy started on 11 October 2022 ($1,520.00) and two week’s rent paid in advance of $760.00.

A landlord must provide the tenants with a written receipt for the bond paid. See section 19(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Section 19(1)(a) of the RTA states: “Where any person pays to the landlord, or to any other person on behalf of the landlord, any amount by way of bond (whether the amount is for the whole or part of the bond), the following provisions shall apply: (a) the person who receives the payment shall forthwith give to the payer a written receipt, signed by that person, showing— (i) the address of the premises to which the payment relates; and (ii) the amount and nature of the payment; and (iii) the date of the payment; and (iv) the name of the payer (if known to the person who receives the payment)”.

I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay exemplary damages because: a. The landlord’s Facebook messenger communications suggest he intentionally failed to give the tenant proper contact information for him and his property manager/agent, and did not issue the tenant with a receipt for the bond, in order to do what he could to evade his New Zealand taxation obligations and his obligations to the tenant; b. The tenant is entitled to receive a receipt for her bond, and this was more necessary given the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The tenant has had to pay off this bond and her next bond to WINZ in instalments out of her benefit which places her under undue financial stress and pressure; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s ongoing and intentional breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations provide a receipt for the bond received for the protection of their interests.

Given the serious risk to the tenant of the landlord’s failure to provide her with a receipt for the bond, coupled with the landlord’s ongoing breach of its obligation to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, and the landlord’s lengthy refusal to repay the bond, and two weeks rent in advance he owes to the tenant, I find it appropriate to award the tenants 100 percent of the maximum exemplary damages available for the two section 19(1) of the RTA breaches, being $1,500.00.

I also find it fair and reasonable to award the tenant compensation of $20.00 per week for the 101 weeks and 6 day period from 11 October 2022 to 23 September 2024 for the landlord’s failure to receipt, lodge and refund the tenants’ bond. This totals an award of $802.86.

I consider this compensation to be appropriate to recognise the stress, uncertainty and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to provide the tenants with their bond and rent overpayment refund for over 40 weeks and 1 day, and the ongoing stress of knowing the bond monies are not with a safe third independent party on trust for them and that they had to come to the Tribunal to get their money refunded to them with the only proof of payment being some WeChat messages and bank records. Failure to ensure the tenancy agreement contains the statutorily required information Contact information for the landlord

[The tenant] claims the landlord, in breach of his s13A of the RTA obligations, has not included in the tenancy agreement (refer to s13A)(1) (a),(aa) and (f) of the RTA): a. The landlord’s full name and contact address in Australia or the contact address of his NZ agent/property manager; b. the landlord’s and his agent/property manager’s contact mobile telephone numbers; and c. A valid address for service for the landlord and his agent/property manager, (other than the tenancy address).

A landlord who fails to ensure that the tenancy agreement includes the information specified in subsection (1)(a) to (ab), (c) to (f), and (i) to (p) commits an unlawful act.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1AAA)and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find that the landlord intentionally failed to provide this information to make himself and his agent/property manager unreachable. The only contact information the tenant had for the owner and his agent/property manager was a single email address. She never had any contact with the property manager/agent son and was reduced to contacting the owner via Facebook messenger until h=she was blocked from being ablet to contact him this way when she tried to enforce her rights under the RTA.

I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay exemplary damages because: a. The landlord’s Facebook messenger communications suggest he intentionally failed to give the tenant proper contact information for him and his property manager/agent; b. The tenant is entitled to have adequate contact information for the owner and/or his nominated agent so that she could communicate any issues and concerns in a timely manner and have these issue and concerns addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s intentional breach of his obligations to provide adequate contact information to the tenant; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations provide adequate contact information to their tenants. Healthy homes standards and insurance information

A landlord must also include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) 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); 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 premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.

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.

Section 13A(2) of the RTA also requires the landlord to provide certain information about the insurance he holds on the property and the insurance excess.

Breaching these obligations without a lawful excuse is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Shane Christiansen failed to provide any of the 13A(1A), (1(B),(1C), (1CA) or (2) of the RTA information in the tenancy agreement. I find Shane Christiansen and Jake Christiansen as agent for Shan Christiansen has committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if 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 find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a further $750.00 exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes an insurance information with a written tenancy agreement; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to receive information about whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements. This was particularly important in this case as the landlord was aware the tenants was not able to view the premise before signing up for the tenancy and that she was a vulnerable young mother with no other options at that time; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have healthy homes compliance and insurance information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non-compliant premise.

I find that 100 percent of the maximum available exemplary damage quantum of $750.00 is appropriate given the tenant has proven the premise was not fully healthy homes compliant and she was denied the opportunity to forgo this rental offered to her because it did not meet the healthy homes standards and the smoke alarm regulations.

I also find that the landlord intentionally failed to provide this HHS information so as to deceive the tenant as he did not want her to know the true state of the premise before getting the four weeks bond and two weeks rent in advance from WINZ before the tenant found out the true state of the premise she had rented and the high levels of statutory non-compliance with the RTA, HIR and other relevant enactments and regulations. Locks

Section 46(1) of the RTA confirms the landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.

The tenant has proven the doors to the rental premise were not able to be closed nor were they lockable.

Failure to comply with section 46(1) of the RTA is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award a tenant a maximum penalty of $1,500.00 exemplary damages.

I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1500.00 exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by to provide the tenants with lockable doors; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to be provided with lockable doors to secure her home; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have lockable doors to their rental premise.

I find that 100 percent of the maximum available exemplary damage quantum is appropriate given the tenant has proven the premise was not lockable in addition to her not being able to shut the external doors at all due to the foundations of the house sinking. Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application if he/she/they have been wholly or substantially successful in his/her/their claim.

Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with her claims, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

The tenant applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details, but not of the tenancy address as she considers it important the public is aware of this premise so as not to allow the landlord to take advantage of other vulnerable tenants.

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 tenant has substantially succeeded in this proceeding, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details are ordered.