What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4966716 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4966716?

Compensation: Maintenance: $2,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,380.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966716?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966716?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11238569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4966716 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4966716?

Compensation: Maintenance: $2,750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,380.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966716?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966716?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11238569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4966716 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966716 — net $120.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,380.00		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$1,500.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: maintenance		$2,750.00	maintenance
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$500.00	failure to lodge bond
Refund of bond		$750.00	Refund of bond
Total award	$3,880.00	$4,000.00
Net award		$120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$120.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966716 — net $120.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,380.00		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$1,500.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: maintenance		$2,750.00	maintenance
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$500.00	failure to lodge bond
Refund of bond		$750.00	Refund of bond
Total award	$3,880.00	$4,000.00
Net award		$120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$120.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenant and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $120.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant] attended with a friend as a support person. [Director 1] is one of the directors of the landlord and represented the landlord. His daughter attended as support person.
This was a tenancy of over 10 years duration. The tenancy began on 26 December 2013 and ended on 27 September 2024.
The tenancy property is located in two level dwelling located the bush in Titirangi. The dwelling is divided into three units, all of which are owned by the landlord. Two units are upstairs, both of which are tenanted. Downstairs there are two garages and the third unit, which was occupied by the tenant. The third unit has a combined kitchen/lounge, a main bedroom, small bedroom and toilet/bathroom.
At the start of the property the rent was $250.00 per week but the rent has slowly increased over time and at the end of the tenancy rent was $340 per week.
The tenant filed a claim on 9 August 2024 seeking the following orders: a. Breach of the landlord’s maintenance and Healthy Homes standards as follows (for which the tenant seeks a rent reduction of 2/3 of his rent for the entire duration of the tenancy – based on the original rental): i. There was no heat pump; ii. There were not sufficient smoke alarms; and iii. The property was damp. b. Exemplary damages: i. Failure to lodge bond; ii. Breach of quiet enjoyment; iii. Breach of maintenance/HHS; iv. Interference with power.
In the intervening period the tenancy ended. Both parties agree that the tenancy ended on 27 September 2024. On 9 November 2024 the landlord filed a claim seeking the following orders: a. Rent arrears - $2,380.00; b. Rubbish removal - $2,748.00; c. New carpet and underlay - $4,194.50 d. Remove and replace toilet - $1,092.50 e. Loss of rent while remediating/renovating property - $3,500.00 f. Stress - $85.000
My overall impression at the hearing was that this was a long term tenancy involving a vulnerable tenant (who now has a supported tenancy arranged through his social worker) and a well-intentioned landlord who operated without a property manager and largely left tenants to themselves, but was available as required when maintenance issues arose. This combination has regrettably led to some issues arising during the tenancy. Onus and evidence
As with all proceedings that come before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all of the evidence produced and referred to at the hearing. However, the parties can be assured that I have considered all of the evidence in reaching this decision. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claims that the landlord has not complied with their maintenance obligations or the Healthy Homes standards.
Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The HHS include various standards including heating, ventilation, draught stopping, and drainage. Heat pump
The tenant said that the property didn’t have a heat pump and so didn’t comply with the HHS heating standard. He said that he discovered that the people in the other units had heat pumps.
The landlord said that the compliance date for this tenancy is not until July 2025 but that they started taking steps in 2020 to ensure compliance and engaged a heat pump company to install heat pumps. The landlord said that the tenant refused to allow the installing contractor to enter to install the heat pump.
The landlord produced evidence of installation of heat pumps in the other units on 30 June 2020 and a letter from the installing contractor dated 24 October 2024 confirming that they had been refused entry and that the tenant told them that he did not want a heat pump.
Compliance dates differ depending on the date that the tenancy began: 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.
This tenancy began in 2014. I find that the compliance date for this tenancy was not until July 2025 and so there has been no breach by the landlord. Smoke alarms
All rental properties must have smoke alarms within 3 metres of each bedroom door (or in every room where a person sleeps) and in each level or storey of a multi-level home.
The tenant said that there were no smoke alarms when he moved in and that he had to have them installed.
The landlord said that there were smoke alarms. The landlord provided the following: a. a written statement from the previous tenant stating that during her tenancy there had been a smoke alarm in the hallway; and b. and a statement from the property manager who inspected the property prior to this tenancy, confirming that the property complied with all relevant regulations at the start of the tenancy.
This claim is not proved and is dismissed. Dampness and related maintenance
The tenant said that when he viewed the property in 2014, he noticed that the house was dark and that the dehumidifier was on. He said that he now realises that the dehumidifier was on because the property is extremely damp.
He said water came into the house through his son’s room and that the carpet became so damp that his son’s mother would not allow him to stay with him. He said that this has impacted his relationship with his son as his son lives with his mother out of Auckland.
The tenant said that the windows can’t open due to swollen wood, there are holes in the skirting and the electricity no longer works properly. He explained that he’d had numerous appliances destroyed due to faulty electricity.
The tenant said that in 2016 he told the landlord about the dampness in his son’s room. He explained that the landlord came over and ripped up the carpet in his son’s room and said that the leak was fixed and wanted to re-lay the carpet. However, he did not consider that the leak had been fixed properly and so told the landlord not to do so until it was fixed. He said that the leak was never fixed and so the carpet was never replaced.
The tenant said that he had not only lost electrical appliances but that many of his possessions have been destroyed. He said that family photos, drawings, clothes have been lost and that it would have been hard for anybody to live there but he has now been diagnosed with Parkinsons and so it was particularly challenging.
The tenant has various letters of support from people concerned about the state of the property (including his son’s mother) and expressing concern. However very few of those people appeared to have direct knowledge of the condition of the property.
The tenant provided photos of numerous clothes and paintings that were covered in mould.
The landlord said that that property is set in the bush in Titirangi and so inevitably is shady. He said that he provides dehumidifiers for all tenants for this reason. The previous tenant confirmed in her statement that the property was not damp as long as it was aired properly.
The landlord said that there was never a leak in the tenant’s son’s room. He said that fairly early on in the tenancy the tenant raised concerns about damp in his son’s room. He said that he went over to look and thought perhaps the carpet did feel slightly damp. The landlord said that he decided, as a precaution, to upgrade the drainage on that side of the house. The landlord provided photos of the work being done, which included moving a block wall and installing additional drainage piping, and explained that the ground outside is much lower than the concrete floor, and now has increased drainage capacity.
The landlord said that when he came over with timber to reinstate the tenant’s sons’ room and lay carpet the tenant refused to let him in. He said that he saw the tenant on numerous occasions over the years as he would attend to outside maintenance, and on each occasion he would ask the tenant if he could finally fix the room. He said that the tenant refused each time.
The landlord explained that even doing basic maintenance has been challenging as the tenant would not allow him entry. He said that he has been working on HHS compliance for all three units but could only install half of the underfloor insulation for the top unit because the tenant would not allow him access to his garage so he could do the other half.
The landlord also said that the tenant did not clear or air the property or tell them that water had entered during Cyclone Gabrielle in early 2023.
The landlord provided the following further evidence: a. Electrical inspection dated 25 October 2024 confirming that there are no electrical issues at the property; b. Statements from the tenants in the two other units confirming that the landlord is available and prompt in dealing with maintenance issues; c. Photos of the windows showing them open; and d. Letter from the Property Manager who let the property to the tenant confirming that the property was redecorated and in good condition;
Having considered all of the evidence I consider that the landlord has breached their maintenance obligations, but only in respect of reinstating the tenant’s son’s room. The other claims in relation to maintenance are not proven 1 .
In finding that the landlord has breached their maintenance obligations I accept that the landlord was in a difficult position as the tenant had refused entry. However, the landlord’s maintenance obligations continue regardless. In such circumstances the landlord is able to seek orders for access from the Tribunal.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation as there has been some loss of amenity as his son’s room could not be used properly. In ordering compensation, I am however mindful that the tenant refused entry to the landlord to carry out maintenance and then has filed this claim many years after the alleged breach. I consider that appropriate compensation, in all the circumstances, to be $2,750.00. Exemplary damages
The tenant sought exemplary damages as set out in paragraph 5(b) above.
The claim in respect of breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment is not proven as the tenant confirmed that at no stage did the landlord enter without permission. There is nothing wrong with the landlord knocking on the door and asking permission to enter.
The claim in respect of breach for interference with power is also not proven. The tenant did not provide supporting evidence of electrical issues and the landlord has produced an electrical inspection stating that there are no electrical issues.
There has been a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations but the breach was not intentional. I do not consider an award of exemplary damages to be appropriate. 1 I acknowledge that the tenant’s possession were covered in mould in the photos produced to the Tribunal but I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the mould was caused by a breach by the landlord. For a property to be free from mould the landlord needs to ensure appropriate ventilation and drainage and the tenant needs to heat the property and ensure that there is air flow. Without further information I am unable to find that the mould was caused by any failing by the landlord. I also note that water entered the property during Cyclone Gabrielle and the tenant did not tell the landlord which may have led to mould forming.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
landlord accepted that they had not lodged the bond. At the hearing they said that they had lodged the bond for their other rental properties, that they had thought that this bond was lodged, but had mistakenly not done so.
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 obligation to lodge the tenant’s bond is so well known and so fundamental that a failure to do so will almost always be regarded as intentional. Landlords need to have systems in place to ensure that the law is complied with. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords lodge bonds so that the tenant’s money is protected in the event of a dispute.
It is common for the Tribunal to award damages of approximately 1/3 of the maximum on the first occasion that a landlord has breached their obligations to lodge a bond. I consider an award of $500 (1/3) to be appropriate in the circumstances of this tenancy. The landlord’s claims

Does the tenant owe the landlord for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27 September 2024. The landlord says that the tenant simply stopped paying rent and is in arrears in the amount of $2,380.00 is owing.
The tenant confirmed that he had not paid rent before leaving. He said that he thought his bond would cover this period.
There does not appear to have been any agreement between the parties that the tenant would stop paying rent and that the bond would cover the rent for this period.
Tenants cannot simply stop paying rent and expect the bond will cover any arrears owed unless there is prior agreement. The landlord may have other claims against the bond.
The rent arrears claimed by the landlord is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos which show a huge amount of rubbish left throughout the house and garage.
The landlord said that he employed workers to clear the rubbish and that they filled a 9m 3 skip bin.
The tenant accepted that he left items behind.
The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is proved. I have awarded what I consider to be a reasonable amount given the amount of rubbish left behind ($1,500).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord said that: a. there was flooding during Cyclone Gabrielle in early February 2023 but the tenant did not tell them 2 . He said that in addition that property had not been aired properly so the carpet was in very poor condition and needed to be replaced ($4,194.50) and b. the toilet had not been cleaned during the tenancy, to the extent that it had to be replaced ($1.092.50).
The landlord provided various photos of the carpet which show it to be in poor condition. However, as explained at the hearing, even if this claim were proven the Tribunal would not make an award of damages as the law requires the Tribunal to consider depreciation.
The Inland Revenue general depreciations rates (IR265) for Residential rental property chattels provide that carpet acquired before April 2011 has a estimated useful life of 5 years, and after 1 April 2012 an estimated useful life of 8 years.
As this was a tenancy of 10 years, and the carpet was not replaced during that time, the carpet has likely reached the end of its useful life and so no compensation could be ordered even if the claim were proved.
Likewise, although there is no specific estimated useful life for the toilet, they do need to be replaced from time to time. No information was provided regarding the age of the toilet and so I do not consider that compensation would be appropriate even if the claim were proved.
The landlord’s claim for damage is dismissed. Lost rent and stress
The landlord said that it took a significant amount of time to renovate the property after the tenant moved out.
This was a very long tenancy and it is fairly usual for landlords to do fairly extensive renovations after a tenancy of this duration. I do not consider that it is appropriate to award compensation for any of the time spent doing renovations.
The landlord also claimed a significant sum for the stress of dealing with this claim. The Tribunal is unable to award compensation for the stress involved in dealing with Tribunal claims. Overall position of the parties
The determination of compensation and exemplary damages is not an exact science and requires the Tribunal to analyse a range of factors in reaching awards. However, it is also important for the Tribunal to stand back and consider whether the overall outcome is fair and just to the parties. 2 The landlord said that the delay has affected their insurance claim for replacement carpet.
I am aware that the outcome of these claims is one where the outcome is effectively almost neutral. I consider that to be an appropriate overall outcome having heard from the parties and considered all of the evidence. Filing fees and name suppression
Both parties have had some success and so I have not made any orders regarding the filing fees. These essentially cancel each other out.
I have carefully considered the issue of name suppression. Both parties have had some success and so arguably entitled to orders for suppression under section 95A RTA. A further factor in the exercise of my discretion is the fact that the tenant is vulnerable and his family details have been discussed in this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966716 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966716 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe the landlord for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe the landlord for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions