What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4981152 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 4981152?

C) Of The RTA Obligations: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,485.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- l…: $5,378.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- w…: $139.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no oven or stove suppl…: $5,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Information On Request: $3,817.00 awarded to tenant; Of The RTA Breach And S 15 Of The HI…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; 3 Windows And Glass Shower Box: $590.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,555.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,438.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Rangehood: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981152?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11257913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4981152 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 4981152?

C) Of The RTA Obligations: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,485.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- l…: $5,378.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- w…: $139.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no oven or stove suppl…: $5,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Information On Request: $3,817.00 awarded to tenant; Of The RTA Breach And S 15 Of The HI…: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; 3 Windows And Glass Shower Box: $590.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,555.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,438.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Rangehood: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981152?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11257913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4981152 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4981152 — net $16,607.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: 3 windows and glass shower box	$590.00		Repairs: 3 windows and glass shower box
Repairs: door, wall and shower box repairs	$1,555.00		Repairs: door, wall and shower box repairs
Repairs: Exterior wall damage to barge boards	$3,438.50		Repairs: Exterior wall damage to barge boards
Replace furnishings: Rangehood	$350.00		Replace furnishings: Rangehood
Rubbish removal	$280.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to maintain- windows and		$139.29	Failure to maintain- windows and
Compensation: Failure to maintain- leaky roof		$5,378.57	Failure to maintain- leaky roof
Compensation: Failure to maintain- flood damage		$3,485.71	Failure to maintain- flood damage
Compensation: no oven or stove supplied- s45(1)(c		$5,500.00	no oven or stove supplied- s45(1)(c
of the RTA breach and s 15 of the HIR		$2,400.00	of the RTA breach and s 15 of the HIR
Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1)(b),(bb) and		$750.00	Breach of s45(1)(b),(bb) and
c) of the RTA obligations		$600.00	c) of the RTA obligations
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS		$750.00	Failure to provide HHS
information on request		$3,817.00	information on request
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$6,240.50	$22,847.57
Net award		$16,607.07
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$16,607.07

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4981152 — net $16,607.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: 3 windows and glass shower box	$590.00		Repairs: 3 windows and glass shower box
Repairs: door, wall and shower box repairs	$1,555.00		Repairs: door, wall and shower box repairs
Repairs: Exterior wall damage to barge boards	$3,438.50		Repairs: Exterior wall damage to barge boards
Replace furnishings: Rangehood	$350.00		Replace furnishings: Rangehood
Rubbish removal	$280.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to maintain- windows and		$139.29	Failure to maintain- windows and
Compensation: Failure to maintain- leaky roof		$5,378.57	Failure to maintain- leaky roof
Compensation: Failure to maintain- flood damage		$3,485.71	Failure to maintain- flood damage
Compensation: no oven or stove supplied- s45(1)(c		$5,500.00	no oven or stove supplied- s45(1)(c
of the RTA breach and s 15 of the HIR		$2,400.00	of the RTA breach and s 15 of the HIR
Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1)(b),(bb) and		$750.00	Breach of s45(1)(b),(bb) and
c) of the RTA obligations		$600.00	c) of the RTA obligations
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS		$750.00	Failure to provide HHS
information on request		$3,817.00	information on request
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$6,240.50	$22,847.57
Net award		$16,607.07
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$16,607.07

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant] $16,607.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord made a cross application for compensation, outgoings, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenants rented a three-story premise that consisted of three bedrooms, a lounge, kitchen and dining room and a hallway that had a small staircase up to the master bedroom above and a small staircase below that led to two more bedrooms that were made from the old garage and the garage door was still in place.
The Tribunal arranged a mandarin interpreter to assist [the landlord], in accordance with the request made by the landlord on the Tribunal application form. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Incorrect allocation of utility bills
The tenancy ended on 13 June 2024. The landlord provided water and power records that showed the tenant owed $278.52 for power and water consumption at the end of the tenancy.
The parties confirmed during the hearing the premise in cut in half and tenanted as two separate households. These two households do not have separate power and water meters and there are no separate water or power usage readers that allow the landlord to accurately assess the tenants power and water usage.
The tenant has been required to pay the other tenant, Mr Raj, half the water and power consumption of the combined households. Her household consisted of her and her son and the other household consisted of two adults and a child.
The tenant queried the arrangement and asked for separate peters or readers to be installed so she was only billed for her consumption. The landlord told her this was not possible. In addition, it appears the tenant has been paying half of the fixed charges as well.
Section 39(3) of the RTA states that “the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”.
The landlord therefore cannot charge the tenant for the fixed fees for accessing these utilities and cannot charge the tenant for consumption where he cannot prove the cost was exclusively attributable to the tenant. The landlord’s claim for water and power arrears is dismissed.
The tenant has produced bank statements that prove she has unlawfully been required to $3,817.00 pay for power and water during her tenancy. The tenant has applied to have this reimbursed.
I award the tenant $3,817.00 that she was required to pay to Mathew Raj, the tenant on the other side of the house. The tenant says Mr Raj lives in the other side of the house with his wife and child.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the key. Rubbish removal from inside and outside the house
The landlord has produced evidence that he says shows the tenant and her son left a lot of rubbish, including a car axel, in the property after they moved out.
He has also produced a letter from the metal collector, Dan Heineke, that came to the premise to remove the car part on 1 September 2024. The landlord says this car part was left there this long as it was too heavy for him to pick up and remove himself.
The landlord also produced a witness statement from Mathew Raj that confirms the tenant’s son got a yellow rubbish bin from somewhere and loaded his rubbish into the bin. The tenant confirms the son did put all the tenant’s rubbish in this yellow bin.
The tenant confirmed she came to collect the yellow bin after the tenancy ended and it was already gone. She was delayed getting it removed due to fiscal pressure because of the cost of having to move. She showed photographs that proved she had also picked up the tires and the petrol run Honda power generator, which the landlord had put down as car parts in his application and showed photographs of before she had moved these. She proved she also moved the downstairs furniture and some other the car parts and metal. One axel was too big and heavy for her to move, so she agrees that was left outside on the driveway.
The landlord says he hired a 12 m3 large bin from Payless Bins Ltd on 1 September 2024 at a cost of $570.00 for 4 days on site and hired Mr Zhao to put the rubbish into the bin at $550.00. He has attached the receipts for these costs. He did not charge a separate amount for the axel to be disposed off as the metal man had taken it at no cost.
The tenant says the reason given for ending the tenancy was that the landlord was going to undertake extensive renovations and she says that the rubbish he is talking about was removed nearly three months after the end of the tenancy and it was renovation rubbish not her rubbish.
The picture of the rubbish produced by the landlord includes the rubbish in the yellow bin left by the tenant but is too much rubbish to be only the yellow bin rubbish.
The landlord confirmed he did not contact the tenant and ask her to have the yellow bin removed and says he left the yellow bin there until he got the bigger bin in September 2024 to remove the rubbish from the yellow bin, and then disposed of the yellow bin separately.
The tenant says the yellow bin was 1100 litres and cost her $760.00 to own the bin. She says she could have called the bin company, and they would come to empty it. She intended to keep the bin, and have it taken to her new rental premise, but when she went to have it removed it was already gone. She was unsure if the landlord had moved it after she had the funds to pay for it, being about a month after the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that the bin the landlord hired for 4 days was mostly used for the removal of renovation rubbish and that the 1100 litre bin the tenant had on site would not have filled more than a quarter of the bin he hired. As such I am awarding one quarter of the bin and labour cost to the landlord, being $280.00.
The amount ordered is proved. Rubbish removal outside the house and lawns
The landlord says the tenancy agreement confirms the tenants is to look after garden and lawn" and the lawn needed cutting after the tenancy ended, so he cut it himself. He claimed the same cost he says it would have cost him to hire a contractor to do this even though it cost him petrol and nothing more to do this work.
The landlord also says he removed some rubbish in the garden and produced a photograph on a few pieces of wood. He says there was more rubbish, but he did not photograph it and he says, the lawn was larger than the picture as it went behind the house.
There was no invoice for the rubbish removal or the petrol for mowing the lawn or for the landlord’s time to mow the lawn, which he says was two hours.
The tenant says the lawn was smaller than the hearing room and would not have take two hours to mow.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for $150.00 as he has not produced sufficient evidence that he had incurred any costs for mowing the lawn or moving/disposing of the pieces of wood. Keys
The tenant says she was given one key to the front door at the start of the tenancy and never received any keys for the ranch slider or the doors downstairs.
On 17 June 2024, the tenant says she left the key in the letterbox as she was asked to by the landlord. The landlord accepts he did email the tenant asking her to leave the key in the letterbox.
The landlord says the keys were for the downstairs rooms and not the front door.
The landlord says he cannot recall how many keys he gave to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy, but he gave her a key to the front door.
The landlord says the lock on the downstairs doors was installed by the tenants son and was a new lock. This lock was put in at the tenant’s cost because she was not given a key to this door. The tenant says she was not reimbursed for the cost of this lock.
I am not satisfied that the tenant should pay $150.00 for a new lock for the front door when she has already paid for a new lock for the downstairs door and dismiss the landlord’s claim for $150.00 accordingly.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 says the damage listed in the subheadings below were caused during the tenancy and that this damage was more than fair wear and tear for which he should be compensated. Windows and glass shower door
The landlord says the tenant is liable for $690.00 for the cost of replacing five windowpanes upstairs and for removing the shower door and replacing it because the tenant’s son smashed these during the tenancy.
Mathew Raj has provided a witness statement in support of the landlord that confirms he witnessed this damage occurring on 14 and 15 May 2024.
The tenant says that one of the kitchen windows upstairs, had rusty hinges and catches, and when she opened it the glass fell out. The other kitchen window was nailed shut and not able to be opened at all during the tenancy. The landlord accepts this and withdraws his claim for this window.
The tenant accepts the cost for the three windows near the entrance door and one in the living room.
The tenant says the shower box was not broken. The tenant took the door off as there was such a bad leak in the roof of bathroom there was a big depression in the floor in front of the shower and the plastic framing moved as the wall was no able to hold it in place. The landlord says the top of the door was cracked and it was impossible to put it back. The landlord produced a photograph he took on 15 June 2024, two days after the tenancy ended. The tenant says the door was not broken when her tenancy ended.
The landlord says he did not do a final inspection as the tenant made lots of excused why they could not meet to do this. As such, the parties disagree on when the damage to the shower door occurred.
The landlord says he did not have any contractors come into the house prior to 15 June 2024 and produced photographs that show the shower glass was in good condition at the start of the tenancy on 14 April 2022 by the letting agent.
I am satisfied that the damage to four upstairs windows and the shower glass occurred during the tenancy because of careless acts or omissions by the tenant or her son. I award $590.00 to the landlord for the repair of this damage, having deducted $100.00 from the landlord’s claim for the kitchen window glass. Door and wall damage and installation of the shower box
The landlord accepted the $690.00 she claimed for the windows and shower door included payment for the replacement of the lounge window glass and removal of the old glass. As such, he agreed to deduct $200.00 from his $1,955.00 claim.
The landlord is claiming the remaining $1,755.00 for the following repairs: a. Plastering glass windows upstairs; b. Fixing damaged kitchen walls upstairs (2 large holes); c. Fixing damaged doors (a sliding door in the kitchen and a door in the hallway that goes to the other side of the premise) upstairs; and d. Installing a new shower box upstairs.
The tenant says the bathroom floor was rotten and needed repair from the roof leaks and the tap leak that leaked for three months.
The landlord denies this and says the flooring is sound and not rotten and his handyman did not need to replace the flooring in the bathroom, only the shower box. The landlord says the new tenants have not raised issues about the flooring in the bathroom.
The tenant does not have any pictures of the alleged rotten flooring but says the water was going under the lino and dripping down to the laundry below. On the balance of probabilities, I accept the landlord’s evidence the shower box damage was caused during the tenancy and the tenant is liable for the cost of installing a new one to replace the broken one.
The tenant says she fixed the two holes in the kitchen wall, but the landlord has produced two photographs of these holes, one from 15 May 2024 and one from 16 June 2024. These photographs show the holes were still in the kitchen wall when the tenancy ended and had not been repaired by the tenant as she claims.
The tenant was unable to produce any evidence of the kitchen wall repair she says she undertook before the end of the tenancy as her phone had died and she no longer had any of the photographs or videos contained on it and they had not been backed up to a cloud.
I am satisfied from the photographic evidence, that it is more likely than not the holes were still there at the end of the tenancy and the landlord incurred the cost in the invoice he produced getting these holes repaired and painted.
The tenant accepts responsibility for the hallway door but not the kitchen door as she says she has never seen the door in the photograph before and neither she nor her son caused damage to any other door.
The landlord has no entry inspection photographs of the kitchen door to prove the condition of it on entry. Therefore, the landlord has not proven that damage occurred during the tenancy or that it was caused by the tenant on the balance of probabilities. I deduct $200.00 from the total amount claimed for the failure to prove on balance the damage to the kitchen door was done by the tenant during the tenancy. The invoice has not broken the costs down to each repair, but I consider this a fair deduction for one door repair.
I award the landlord the remaining $1,555.00 of costs he has proven on balance he incurred as a result of the tenant’s or her son’s careless acts or omissions. Wall damage and damage to the side of the house near the driveway
The landlord has produced an invoice for $3,438.50 for repair of the following: a. Damage to the internal walls downstairs; b. Damage to the ceilings downstairs; c. Smashed windowpanes downstairs of the two offices downstairs; d. Damage to the window frames of the two-office windows downstairs; and e. Damage to the external walls downstairs; and f. Fixing the damaged baseboard on the side of the house near the driveway and the path.
The tenant accepts the damage to the internal walls in the downstairs offices.
The tenant denies responsibility for the damage to the ceiling as she says the ceiling was damp from the flooding and was mouldy and soft and would have had to be replaced because of that flood damage, but the tenant also says she asked her son to cut the hole in the ceiling downstairs to get rid of the mould and her son put the cardboard over it to cover the hole.
The tenant accepted the damage to the windows from the home-made ventilation system the tenant’s son installed in the downstairs offices.
The tenant says the hole in the external wall in the office is where the tenant and her son made a hole to release the water from the flooding in the February 2023 flood that resulted in calf high water in the downstairs rooms.
The landlord produced a witness statement from Mr Raj, that confirms the tenant’s son backed up into the other side of the house making a large hole in the baseboard. The tenant says she was unaware of this damage occurring.
The landlord has also produced photographs that prove the extent of the damage done to the exterior of the house.
The neighbour, Mr Raj, has provided another witness statement that says he witnessed the tenant’s son drive into the side of the house on 1 May 2024.
The tenant says her son did drive into the house, as the breaks on his car failed. She says the incident happened when she was away from the house. Her son told her his brakes failed and she says that when he showed her the damage, there was a small hole in the baseboards about the size of a water jug.
I am satisfied that this damage was more than fair wear and tear and was caused by the tenant’s son’s careless act. I award the landlord the $3,438.50 repair cost claimed as the amount has been proven. Rangehood
The tenant took the range hood down as it did not work and it was too low and it was dirty and greasy. The tenant says she placed the rangehood downstairs in the laundry and she was not sure if was there when she vacated the premise on 13 August 2024.
In addition, the tenant says there was no reason for the rangehood to be there as there were no appliances.
Further, the tenant says the rangehood parts used by her son in the downstairs area was from an old rangehood she had and was not the landlord’s range hood. She points out the parts in the downstairs office are white and not the same colour as the landlord’s rangehood.
The landlord is claiming $350.00 for part of the cost of the purchase of the original rangehood, which he says cost him $450.00 about 3 or 4 years ago.
I accept the evidence shows the tenant removed the rangehood and cannot prove it was still in the laundry in a condition that it was able to be reinstalled.
I am satisfied that this damage was more than fair wear and tear and was caused by the tenant’s son’s taking the rangehood down during the tenancy and it not being in one piece in the laundry at the end of the tenancy. I award the landlord the $350.00 replacement cost claimed. The amount has been proven. Pigeon poo damage to the deck
The landlord says tenant put a box for birds on the wall near the deck and placed food in it to attract the pigeons.
The tenant says she placed a piece of plywood above the ranch slider to stop the rain coming into the lounge as there are gaps in the ranch slider that allowed the rain to come in as the ranch slider did not close properly.
The photograph the landlord produced of the roof above the ranch slider, where an additional piece of gib is, has a number of beams that would be a natural sitting place for pigeons.
I do not accept the piece of gib is a pigeon house, nor do I accept the tenant, or her son placed food in it to attract pigeons. It is too high to reach easily and if they wanted to feed the pigeons they could have placed food on the deck.
The tenant says there are many wild pigeons on the property, and they were a nuisance to her and her son and they did what they could to detract them from coming on the deck and did nothing to make the deck a more attractive place for them to come.
I am satisfied, based on the photographs provided by the landlord and the tenant’s oral evidence, that the pigeons were a problem but not a problem caused by any careless or intentional acts or omissions by the tenant and her son.
The pigeon damage to the deck and air conditioning unit has resulted from the pigeon’s having chosen to reside at the property of their own free will and not because the tenant and her son encouraged them to do so.
This claim for $500.00 is dismissed. Tenant allowing more than the maximum number of occupants allowed in the tenancy agreement to live in the premise during the tenancy and lost rent.
The landlord says the tenant allowed her son to live at the premise during the tenancy and that she also allowed her son to cause careless and intentional damage to the premise during the time he lived there.
The landlord has provided witness statements in support of his claim from Mr Raj, that lives in the other side of the premise in a separate household. These witness statements state Mr Raj witnessed the tenant’s son living in the premise for the duration of the tenancy and that the son caused considerable damage to the premise.
Clause 4 of the tenancy agreement, signed by the tenant on 27 April 2022, clearly states the maximum number of occupants staying at the premise is to be one.
Section 40(3) of the RTA states “where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy”.
Section 40(3A)(e) of the RTA states that any breach of s40(3) without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,000.00 may be awarded if the Tribunal accepts the breach was intentional.
The tenant accepts her son has lived with her throughout the tenancy and says the landlord was aware of this during the tenancy and never raised this with her, nor did he issue her with a 14 day notice to remove her son from the premise. She says at no time did the landlord ask her son, [son’s name supressed], to leave the premise and therefore he had given her tacit consent.
The landlord wants the Tribunal to order the tenant to pay additional rent of $95.00 per week for her son for the 110 weeks he says the tenant’s son has lived at the premise without consent.
The landlord denies knowing the son lived there and says the first time he knew the tenant had her son living there was 14 May 2024 when Mr Raj told him the son was causing damage to the property. He says the tenant deliberately hid any signs of her son living there when he came to undertake property inspections.
The tenant says the landlord had contractors at the property in January and February 2023, after the floods, and her son showed the contractors into the house and the flood damage downstairs. She also says the landlord charged her 50 percent of the utility costs as he knew there were two adults in her half of the house and two adults and a child in the other half of the house. The landlord denies this was the reason for this and reiterated that he did not know that she had her son living there.
The tenant says that every time she got a bill from Mr Raj for utilities it had two adults on the bill to justify the 50/50 split. She produced calculations from Mr Raj showing he calculated the utility split based on the two households both having two adults and stated the landlord had always been given copies of these utility calculations.
On page 6 of the landlord’s defence to the tenant’s claims document he records “on 19/4/2024, I emailed Tracey that “my handyman Mr Li and his wife have asked me to take a photo of the window (from inside the room) where a timber board was temporarily installed when we do the inspection tomorrow Saturday 20 April 2024. Now the inspection has been postponed to next Saturday as you told me that your son [name suppressed] has tested positive for Covid”. This statement produced by the landlord shows that he was aware the tenant’s son was living at the premise earlier than the 14 May 2024.
I dismiss this claim for exemplary damages as I am satisfied the landlord took no steps after he found out about the son living at the property to request, he move out or that he pay rent. I find the landlord gave the tenant tacit approval for the additional occupant by his inaction. TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord comply with his section 45(1)(b),(bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under s45(1)(bb) of the RTA a landlord must comply with the healthy homes standards.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA a landlord must also comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, such as the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
Regardless of the number breaches of the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) 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 the number of breaches within that section when assessing the quantum of exemplary damages to be awarded.
General damages may be also awarded for breaches of s45(1) 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(1) of the RTA will be quantified with all s45(1) breaches at the end of the s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) section of this decision.
The general damages for any proven s45(1) of the RTA breach will be awarded under each separate s45(1) obligation heading set out below. 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 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5.
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 s7(2)(b) and s15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the rental premise has a kitchen with adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking and that the premise is free from dampness.
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: Broken window and rotten frames 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].
The tenant provided evidence that she issued a 14-day notice on 17 December 2023 for the rotten window frames in two of the main bedroom windows and the kitchen window and stated that one of the kitchen windows had been nailed shut from the beginning of the tenancy and she wanted them all repaired.
The rotten window frames were never repaired the broken glass was not replaced until after the tenancy had ended and one kitchen window was nailed shut from the outside and the other one had never worked due to rusty hinges and rotten framing.
The landlord says he contacted his handyman, and he was unable to fix these windows as the tenant always had excuses that her and her son were sick or had Covid or the like.
On 19 April 2024 the landlord emailed the tenant to say his handyman had asked her to take a photo of where the tenant had boarded up the broken bedroom window so he could find a replacement and that he had been having trouble finding the replacement window frame and had not found one yet. The tenant sent him a picture on 21 April 2024 and the landlord told her he would get the window fixed as soon as possible.
The landlord produced evidence that he had followed up his handyman on a semi regular basis and that because the handyman had trouble finding second windows to fit, the job never got done. As such, he says I cannot find that he did not take all reasonably practical steps to repair the windows.
I do not accept that the landlord took all reasonable steps to have the windows repaired. If his handy man could not do the job, he could have made attempts to get a master builder to do the job in a more reasonable timeframe and he did not.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant by not getting the windows addressed in a reasonable timeframe. In doing so, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45(1) of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period 17 December 2023 to 13 June 2024, being the 25 weeks and 4 day period she suffered the stress and inconvenience of living with damaged windows when she was paying market rent for a premise that should have been in a reasonable state of repair. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $25.00 per week for that period. $24 per week x 25 weeks and 4 days = $139.29 rent rebate. Leaky Roof
The tenant provided evidence that the first 14 day notice she issued was on 22 May 2022 in regard to the leaking tap and roof.
On 15 August 2022 the landlord sent the tenant a text that says he is sorry his contractor could not fix the leaking tap and roof and asks her to show the contractor where the problems are as he is unable to come with the contractor on Saturday. He also says he dug a trench on the side of the house and asked if that had fixed the flooding of the downstairs area.
On 15 December 2023, she issued a further 14 days’ notice to fix the leaking roof and said the water was going through into the laundry and had blown the plug to the washing machine and had blown the fuse box and the power pout s in the lounge and bedroom were no longer working.
The tenant says the roof leaks never got fixed and they got worse and started tripping the power meter and fuse box as the water was going into the fuse box and into other electrics in the house.
27 February 2024 the landlord sent an email to the tenant saying the handyman was coming to look at the roof on 10 March 2024 and the roof replacement may have to be delayed due to lack of funds. The day the tenant moved out, she says the hole roof was replaced.
The tenant produced an email dated 18 December 2023 that says “my handyman fixed the power this morning. For the leaking roof, I will ask a couple more roofers to provide me with quotes for roof replacement. For the windows, my handyman will look for the windows with the same sizes and will let me know once he have found them. I will then book a time with you thanks”.
The landlord says there were no more roof leaks after he had the PVC roofing fixed and that there were no other leaks.
The tenant says after the PVC roof was replaced the roof still leaked and that is why the landlord sent Mr Li again to investigate it. She also confirmed Mr Li had told the landlord the whole roof needed to be replaced and the landlord told this to the tenant. The landlord produced evidence the PVC roof was repaired on 16 March 2024 and replaced it 10 June 2023.
From the evidence produced I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the main roof was never replaced until after the tenancy ended and that the main roof was leaky from 22 May 2022 to 13 June 2024, being 107 weeks and 4 days.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant by not getting the main roof leaks addressed in a reasonable timeframe. In doing so, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45(1) of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period 22 May 2022 to 13 June 2024, being the 107 weeks and 4 days period, she suffered the stress and inconvenience of living with bad roof leaks when she was paying market rent for a premise that should have been in a reasonable state of repair. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for that period. $50 per week x 107 weeks and 4 days = $5,378.57 rent rebate. Flood damage
The tenants say the downstairs flooded in the February 2023 wet weather event and the water was calf deep. The tenant and her son cut a hole in the wall to let the water out and the room started to smell after that as nothing was done to dry it out and thereafter black mould grew on the walls.
The tenant notified the landlord straight away and he did not look at it and did not send anyone to look at it. The flooring was tiles.
When the landlord came to dig the trench, the tenant showed him the black mouldy walls and he did nothing. The tenant says the landlord told her to open the window.
The landlord confirmed the remedial work he undertook consisted of digging a trench along the back of the house on 28 May 2023 and putting in better drainage to remove the ground water outside.
The partes confirmed the downstairs remained water damage until the end of the tenancy.
From the evidence produced I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the downstairs flood damage was never investigated or remediated until after the tenancy ended and that the tenant lived in the resulting dam and mouldy conditions with foul odours being omitted from the downstairs area of the house from 11 February 2023 to 13 June 2024, being 69 weeks and 5 days.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant by not getting the downstairs flood damage investigated and remediated in a reasonable timeframe. In doing so, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45(1) of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period 11 February 2023 to 13 June 2024, being the 69 weeks and 5 days period she suffered the stress and inconvenience of living with the results of the flood damage when she was paying market rent for a premise that should have been in a reasonable state of repair. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for that period. $50 per week x 69 weeks and 4 days = $3,485.71 rent rebate. Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise
Under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA a landlord must also comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, such as the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
The landlord agrees there was no stove and no oven but says the tenant was aware of this when she rented the house and so she should not be able to make a claim against him for not having provided these basic cooking facilities.
The tenant confirmed she had purchased her own hot plate, electric fry pan, air fryer and microwave so she could cook and bake.
Section 7(2)(b) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”) clearly states that in every premise there must be a kitchen or kitchenette with adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA also confirms that the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. The HIR is one of those enactments.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(c) of the RTA and s7(2)(b) of the HIR obligations to the tenants by not providing the tenant with a means of boiling and baking food and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 11 weeks period she was denied boiling and baking facilities by the landlord and for the stress and inconvenience suffered when she was paying market rent for a premise that met the RTA and HIR cooking facility requirements. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for that period. $50 per week x 111 weeks =$5,550.00 rent rebate ordered Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The HHS does provide some exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching the landlord’s HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The date of commencement of tenants’ tenancy was 28 April 2022. The landlord had a statutory requirement to meet all the healthy homes standards within 90 days after the commencement of the tenancy, being Wednesday, 27 July 2022, unless an exemption applied. If an exemption applied, this exemption needed to be recorded in the signed tenancy agreement.
There was considerable media attention and a lead in time of 3 years for this legislation. The landlord should have been aware of her obligations to the tenants under s45(1)(bb) of the RTA. A. Insulation
The tenant says the premise did not meet the insulation standard as the house was so cold and damp throughout the tenancy.
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 landlord produced an insulation certificate of compliance that states the property has been insulated to NZ Standard- NS 4246:2016 and that underfloor and ceiling insulation was installed on 17 April 2015.
The landlord has also provided a letter from his handyman that states the house has ceiling insulation.
The tenant has failed to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has disproved it with the certificate of compliance. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. B. Draught stopping
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires landlords make sure the property doesn’t have unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors and doors which cause noticeable draughts. All unused open fireplaces must be closed off or their chimneys must be blocked to prevent draughts.
The tenant has produced evidence of a number of windows and doors that had gaps. In his defence, the landlord says the tenant never raised this with him.
The tenant says she asked for sealant for the front door and windows and when she did not receive it, she purchased and installed it herself.
The landlord has an obligation to ensure the premise meets the draught stopping standard. The evidence shows the landlord took no steps to investigate whether the house met the draught stopping standard, nor did he take any other steps to ensure the house was free from draughts.
I find the landlord has intentionally failed to ensure the house meets the draught stopping standard and that he is in breach of his s45(1)(bb) of the RTA obligations to meet this standard. C. Ventilation standard
[The tenant/s] 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 proven that the landlord has nailed shut a window in kitchen and then in one of the bedrooms. She has also proven that other windows did not open due to rusty hinges and rotten window frames.
The landlord has an obligation to ensure the premise meets the ventilation standard. The evidence shows the landlord took no steps to investigate whether the house met the ventilation standard, nor did he take any other steps to ensure the house was adequately ventilated.
I find the landlord has intentionally failed to ensure the house meets the draught stopping standard and that he is in breach of his s45(1)(bb) of the RTA obligations to meet this standard. D. Moisture and drainage
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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 tenant says the February 2023 flood damage to the downstairs area of the house is sufficient evidence the premise did not have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water the flooding downstairs.
I am not satisfied the premise did not have efficient drainage systems as the premise had not showed signs of any drainage related leaks downstairs prior to the February 2023 cyclone, that caused major damage all across the country.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim as she has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities the house lacked adequate and efficient drainage systems outside of a cyclone related extreme wet weather event. Exemplary damages
The landlord has committed 3 intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA and 1 of the HIR and S45(1)(c) of the RTA and 2 of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA. These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenant living in sub-standard conditions and experiencing considerable period of stress, inconvenience and loss of amenities she was paying rent to enjoy.
I find the landlord has committed 6 unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenant a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience, loss of amenity caused, and putting her to the cost of purchasing her own boiling and baking facilities.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches his s45(1) of the RTA obligations and his s7 of the HIR obligations for such lengthy periods and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant’s many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being a third of the maximum penalty available. Retaliatory termination notice
Section 50(1)(b) of RTA confirms “no tenancy to which this Act applies shall terminate or be terminated, in the case of a periodic tenancy to which a right of termination under any of sections 51 to 53B, 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(c), and 59 to 59B applies, except by the giving notice in accordance with the applicable section”.
Section 51of the RTA provides a list of lawful reasons the landlords could have given the tenant notice to end her periodic tenancy. S51(2)(f) of the RTA states “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice, if extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date”.
In addition, under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord issued a 90-day notice to the tenant on 13 April 2024 ending the tenancy on 17 July 2024. The reason given on this notice is “to carry out extensive refurbishment on the property”.
The tenant says the 90-day notice is retaliatory.
Both the tenants and the landlord agreed during the hearing that the landlord wanted to carry out extensive refurbishment and repairs to the premise.
The tenant asked for the healthy homes information on 7 April 2024 and says that is why the landlord issued her notice, because no mention of refurbishment had been mentioned until the notice was issued.
The landlord says on 31 March 2024 the landlord’s wife went to the property with the handyman and saw the extensive damage and that is why they wanted to fix the house and they needed to sell the house due to financial pressure and he was made redundant.
On 22 August 2024 the landlord refunded some rent $405 of rent and asked her to withdraw her application and again on 3 September 2024 asking what he needed to do to withdraw the application.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord issued the tenant with the termination notice in retaliation for her asking for healthy homes information. The evidence shows that it is more likely than not the landlord’s wife was shocked at what she saw when she conducted the inspection on 31 March 2024 and insisted on the renovation works being commenced as soon as possible and that these renovations were of such a nature that there could be no one living in the premise while they were carried out. Therefore, I dismiss the tenant’s claim. Did the landlord fail to provide healthy homes information when it was requested by the tenant?
On 2 April 2024, the tenant says she replied to the landlord’s wife’s text asking to come to inspect the house and the tenant replied that she could and asked for a healthy homes report as she had never had one.
The tenant says she requested healthy homes information from the landlord again by text message to the landlord’s wife on 7 April 2024 and he did not provide it to her within the statutorily required 21 days, or at all. She says she also sent a further text to the landlord that day asking for the healthy homes report but could not produce this text message.
This text message was sent to the landlord’s wife who was acting for him while he was away from New Zealand.
The landlord was away from 28 March 2024 to 12 April 2024 and he says he did not receive the message as his wife forgot to tell him about this request.
Section 45(1AC) of the RTA confirms that if the tenant requests the landlord to provide information described in section 123A(1)(e) (relating to the healthy homes standards) to the tenant, the landlord must, within 21 days after the date of receiving the request, provide the information to the tenant.
Section 45(1AD)(a) of the RTA confirms “a landlord who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1AC) commits an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00 can be awarded by the Tribunal.
I am satisfied the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities she has made the request for the healthy homes information and the landlord has failed to provide it in the statutorily required timeframe and that the landlord’s wife was acting on his behalf while he was away and should have come back to the tenant with the information or when her husband would be able to give it to her after his return to New Zealand.
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 of $750.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew he had to provide healthy homes information to the tenant at the start of the tenancy and to prove to her 90 days after her tenancy commenced that the premise met the healthy homes standards. When he did not do so, it was reasonably foreseeable that after all the repair and maintenance issues she suffered she would make such a request. When she did so, the evidence shows the landlord, more likely than not, did not provide the requested information as he knew the premise was not fully compliant; b. The tenant suffered the stress of not knowing whether the premise met the HHS standards and what needed to be done to; ensure she was living in healthy and safe conditions; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of this obligation to her; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide tenants with HHS information when it is requested.

Did the landlord fail to provide insurance information in the tenancy agreement?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenancy agreement clearly shows that [the landlord] failed to provide any insurance information in the tenancy agreement, despite using a Tenancy Services template that prompted him to supply all the statutorily required information. I find [the landlord] has committed an unlawful act intentionally.
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) RTA.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required insurance information, even though he claims the premise was insured for tenant related damage. He did not produce a copy of the insurance policy or information to the Tribunal. I am also satisfied it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $600.00 of exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known he had to comply with the insurance information requirements set out in the RTA and intentionally did not. The landlord did not give any reasonable explanation for this breach; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that she took on the tenancy for a premise that she did not know was insured or what her liability would be if she caused any damage that was not considered fair wear and tear under the RTA nor did she know if the house itself was insured; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide proof of whether the landlord has tenant and/or house insurance and what the excess of the relevant polices are; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide the insurance information required pursuant to s 45(2B) and (2C) of the RTA. Did the landlord fail to comply with section 13A(1A), (1CA) and (2) of the RTA by failing to provide a signed health homes statement and the required healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement?
Section 13A of the RTA provides a comprehensive list of information that must be included in the tenancy agreement.
Section 13A(1A) states the landlord “must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that provides the following information to the tenant (subject to subsections (1B) and (1C)): (a) whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises: (b) details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises”.
Section 13A(1CA) states he landlord “must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5)”.
Section 13A(2) required the landlord to provide information on whether the premises are insured and if they are who with and the excess amount for each policy and that the landlord will provide a copy of the policy on request. The landlord says at the time the tenancy commenced the house was insured by AMI but he did not inform the tenant of this.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1A), (1CA) or (2) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties both produced a copy of the tenancy agreement that does not contain insurance information, a signed healthy homes statement agreeing to comply with the healthy homes standards and does not contain any of the healthy homes information in the statements about the five healthy homes standards, including the insulation statement.
The tenancy agreement is a Tenancy Services template agreement the landlord has got from the tenancy services website. The entire template has been used and provided to the tenant, none of the healthy homes or insurance sections have been completed.
The landlord accepted he did not provide the tenant with health homes information or the insurance information in the tenancy agreement, nor did he provide an exemption statement that explained how the premise did not meet the healthy homes standards and he did not provide the tenant with any insurance information. He said he was busy with his job and just didn’t do it. He also says he was too busy to have a healthy homes report and assessment done and he did not realise he had to do this until 2024.
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 it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and/or the insurance information provided by s13A(2) of the RTA and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known he had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and intentionally did not. The evidence the landlord gave the Tribunal suggests the landlord did not comply with the HHS due to trying to save money on engaging a reputable healthy homes assessment provider to ensure he met his HHS obligations and could record them in the tenancy agreement; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that she took on the tenancy for a premise that did not meet some of the HHS and that led to her living in cold and drafty conditions with windows that were nailed shut or did not open. The tenant may not have taken the tenancy if she had known the premise did not comply with some of the healthy homes’ standards, but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed HHS statements or an assessment report that proves to the tenant that the rental premises meet all of the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because both parties have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee to both parties. Name Suppression
The tenants and the landlord apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of either of the parties conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981152 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981152 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to provide insurance information in the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to provide insurance information in the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions