What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4982388 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 4982388?

Compensation: Heat Pump As Agreed: $2,742.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Incorrect notice for r…: $428.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Power (As Agreed: $4,347.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982388?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11737456-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4982388 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 4982388?

Compensation: Heat Pump As Agreed: $2,742.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Incorrect notice for r…: $428.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Power (As Agreed: $4,347.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982388?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11737456-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4982388 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4982388 — net $250.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power (as agreed	$4,347.09		Power (as agreed
Compensation: heat pump as agreed		$2,742.00	heat pump as agreed
Exemplary damages: unlawful premises		$1,200.00	unlawful premises
Compensation: Incorrect notice for rent increase		$428.57	Incorrect notice for rent increase
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide working locks		$200.00	Failure to provide working locks
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,347.09	$4,597.57
Net award		$250.48
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$250.48

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4982388 — net $250.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power (as agreed	$4,347.09		Power (as agreed
Compensation: heat pump as agreed		$2,742.00	heat pump as agreed
Exemplary damages: unlawful premises		$1,200.00	unlawful premises
Compensation: Incorrect notice for rent increase		$428.57	Incorrect notice for rent increase
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide working locks		$200.00	Failure to provide working locks
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,347.09	$4,597.57
Net award		$250.48
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$250.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Norman Denton must pay [The tenant/s] $250.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant gave evidence that, at the commencement of the tenancy, she believed that she was a tenant of her separate premises, and the landlord was the owner of the property and her landlord. She paid rent to the landlord, and she came to him with requests for maintenance and other tenancy matters.
The landlord gave evidence that he understood the relationship to be one of flatmates. The landlord had a (head) tenancy agreement for the whole property, and he had previously had people sleeping in the converted garage prior to it being fully self-contained. These people were flatmates and came into the main house for bathroom and kitchen facilities.
Sometime later the landlord completed further refurbishment to the tenancy premises adding a full kitchen and bathroom and making it fully self-contained. He did not consider, at the time, that this could change the legal relationship between him and the people living in the tenancy premises.
In early 2024, the landlord texted the tenant in relation to a proposed rent increase (to take effect 20 days later). The proposed increase was considerable ($425.00 to $750.00), and the tenant was upset by it.
The tenant gave evidence that she had already thought there were issues with the tenancy premises in terms of lawfulness and this proposed rent increase spurred her to make inquiries of various individuals and institutions. As a result of these inquiries, the tenant said that she became aware that the property was not consented, that the proposed rent increase was objectively excessive, and that the landlord was obliged to give her 60 days’ notice (as opposed to the 20 days given).
She referred all of these matters (and more) to the landlord and did not receive any satisfactory response. The parties did, however, agree to a smaller rent increase (to $500.00) which was commenced 20 days after the initial text concerning rent amount.
The tenant made an application to the Tenancy Tribunal in August 2024 alleging a number of landlord breaches as detailed below.
Under an order dated 16 September 2024, the Tribunal found that the relationship between the parties was one of landlord and tenant and that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applied to the relationship.
A directions conference was held in November 2024 and the landlord indicated that he would be filing a cross application, but no cross application was filed before the substantive hearing date.
The substantive hearing was held on 11 April 2025 over a full day.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
One of the matters to be determined related to the amount the tenant owed for power.
The landlord had not provided regular power bills and the tenant was very concerned that she owed a considerable debt and was unaware of the quantum.
This was particularly distressing for the tenant as she had other financial worries, and this was an added, and seemingly unnecessary, stress.
The tenant was unaware how much she owed for power in total until the hearing date. There was a separate meter for the premises, but it was included on the landlord’s main power bill. There was no adequate reason given for why the landlord was not able to pass this information to the tenant when the bills were received as she had requested multiple times.
The landlord had the information available at the hearing and I reviewed it and calculated the amount owing in front of the parties.
They both accepted that the amount owing by the tenant to the landlord for power throughout the tenancy (taking into account payments already made by the tenant), is $4,347.09.
The amount is ordered by consent.
The tenant claimed compensation for the cost of a heat pump she had installed early in the tenancy.
The landlord agreed that he should be liable for this cost.
The amount, being $2,742.00, is ordered by consent.
The tenant claimed that the landlord gave incorrect notice for a rent increase being 20 days rather than the required 60 days.
The tenant gave the landlord information about the requirements of the Act in relation to rent increases at the time that the increase was being negotiated.
The landlord, believing the tenant to be a flatmate at that time, did not think the Act applied.
The eventual agreed rent increase was $75.00 per week. The increase was paid after 20 days rather than 60, being 40 days early.
Calculated on a daily basis, this equates to $428.57 over the 40 days during which the tenant paid the increased rent when she had no legal obligation to do so.
The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant made a claim for compensation for rubbish removal in relation to the lack of council bins at the premises. A landlord is obliged to pass on council bins if they are provided.
In this case, no separate bins were provided as the property was not separately rated and was not allocated its own bins.
The landlord said that he made the council bins allocated to the whole address available to the tenant and they were located closer to the tenancy premises than they were to the main house.
As no additional bins were available for this address, there is no obligation for the landlord to provide them and this claim must therefore be dismissed.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must (amongst other obligations): comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust ([2020] NZDC 17667) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: a.The intention of the person; b.The effect of the unlawful act; c.The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d.The public interest.
The tenant made a claim in relation to smoke alarms which was withdrawn at the hearing.
The premises did not have the consent of the appropriate council and were therefore unlawful residential premises. This was accepted by both parties.
The council records confirm that the property was not consented, and the council gave the owner options to bring the premises up to the required standard or return it to its original consented use (a garage). The owner declined to upgrade the premises further due to the cost. The exact extent of the requirements was not available, but the landlord confirmed that a fire wall had to be installed between the premises and the neighbouring land, and this was a cost which made the premises uneconomic to maintain as a residential rental property.
The landlord knew that the property was not consented at the commencement of the tenancy. Although he was not the owner of the property, he did the work which made this premises self-contained and, therefore, a separate tenancy.
He gave evidence and provided supporting documents to show that the electrical work had been done by a professional electrician and had been signed off and plumbing work had been done at some expense and to a high standard.
Given that the landlord had done the work to make the premises self-contained, presumably to make it more attractive to tenants and more valuable as a rental property, I find that he intentionally acted in a way which resulted in a breach of the Act.
Therefore, I find he has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
I acknowledge that the landlord thought he was arranging for a flatmate to move in and he intended to continue to work on the premises as he could afford to over the tenancy term (although there was no evidence of any progress being made in this regard).
In determining exemplary damages, I am particularly mindful of the effect on the tenant.
Many of the tenant’s concerns during the tenancy were due to the fact that the premises was unconsented and therefore did not have its own separate address. For example, • The power bill issue was a consequence of the property not receiving its own separate power bill which would likely not have been an issue if it had been consented and had its own address or a separate power agreement (see above for further discussion). • The tenant was also concerned that she had not been provided with council rubbish bins and had to take her rubbish to the dump at some expense. If the property had been separately rated and addressed, it would likely have been provided with its own bins (see above for further discussion). • The tenant was concerned that there was no extractor in the kitchen, and this would likely have been a requirement of consent so would have had to have been provided if the property had been consented. • Packages were delivered to the main house instead of to the tenancy address as it had no separate postal address. This caused delays in the tenant receiving delivered or posted items and, on one occasion, she said she did not receive delivery of an item at all. • When the tenant discovered that a consequence of the property not being consented was that her tenancy could be terminated at short notice, she was concerned at the housing insecurity this entailed and began to seek new accommodation. I consider that this would have added additional strain to the tenant’s situation.
I have taken account of the lack of an extraction fan and the inconvenience and distress of the other matters when setting the exemplary damages amount.
I do not consider that the lack of building consent resulted in the tenant otherwise getting less than she had bargained for in any other meaningful way. She looked at the property with the landlord and the rent was agreed between them privately (the premises not having been advertised) prior to the tenancy commencing.
She was happy with the rent and had voluntarily offered another $25.00 per week so that her horse could graze in the adjoining paddock.
Although the intended rent increase in early 2024 was likely excessive, the final amount agreed ($500 including grazing) was more appropriate.
It is clearly in the public interest for tenanted properties to be fully and properly consented and compliant with all relevant legislation.
I consider that in the circumstances $1,200.00 exemplary damages is appropriate.
The amount ordered is proved.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45B, a landlord must, except in certain circumstances, permit the installation of a fibre connection in the premises if— • there is no fibre connection in the premises; and • it is possible to install a fibre connection in the premises; and • the tenant requests a fibre connection; and • the fibre connection can be installed at no cost to the landlord (for example, because the cost is covered by the UFB Initiative).
A landlord who is required to permit the installation of a fibre connection must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the installation within a reasonable period of time and respond to the tenant’s request or that of a network operator within 21 days of receiving a request.
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 $1500.00. See section 45B(6) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord was not able to install fibre connection as no such connection is available for this property. Therefore, the landlord has not breached any obligation in this regard and no exemplary damages can be awarded.
The tenant claims the landlord has not provided working locks to secure the premises.
The lock on the front (and only external) door was faulty and not properly fixed into place. The tenant said that this meant that she could not lock the door from the inside.
She also gave evidence that she had never been provided with keys to the property so could not lock the door from the outside.
The landlord said that he had provided two keys a week or so into the tenancy by dropping them just inside the door. The tenant said she had no knowledge of this, and the landlord confirmed he had not communicated this with her at the time.
The landlord also accepted responsibility for the repair to the lock by email at a later stage in the tenancy, but this was never attended to.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent under section 46(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord knowingly failed to provide a suitable lock for the premises.
I find he has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
The landlord may have delivered keys to the tenant, but she claims not to have received them. He did not follow up to ensure that they had been received.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant was not concerned about security as her flatmate always left his window open and this was adjacent to the front door.
I also acknowledge that if this had been a significant issue for the tenant, she would have arranged a locksmith herself and asked the landlord to compensate her (as she did with the installation of the heat pump) or asked the landlord to attend to the repairs earlier in the tenancy.
If the tenant had raised the issue of the keys with the landlord, he would have known that his delivery of the keys had failed for some reason and presumably would have arranged new keys. This conversation did not take place, so the landlord was apparently unaware that the tenant did not have keys.
I cannot therefore find that the landlord intentionally withheld keys from the tenant, but I do find that he did not make the repairs to the lock that he had said he would make.
Given that this did not seem to have been a highly significant issue for the tenant, I have awarded the sum of $200.00 to acknowledge the fact that the landlord intentionally failed to repair the lock (which he said could have been fixed with a screwdriver and a few minutes of time).
The amount ordered is proved.
[The tenant/s] 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). In particular, the tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating and ventilation standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: • 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.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
There is no doubt that the heating standard was not met at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord provided a heater which he thought was adequate to heat the property but acknowledges that he is now aware that it did not comply with HHS.
The parties agree that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen. When the tenant became aware of this requirement, she brought it to the landlord’s attention, and he said he would install a fan.
I do not consider that exemplary damages are appropriate in terms of the HHS.
Landlords should comply with HHS, and it is generally no excuse that a landlord was unaware of the requirements. Landlord’s run businesses for profit and must ensure that they are aware of, and comply with, all legal requirements.
This landlord did not consider himself to be a landlord and was genuinely unaware that he was a landlord until this Tribunal declared that to be the case.
In terms of the building standard breach referred to above, where the landlord had done the work himself and knew that the premises was non-compliant, it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
In relation to the HHS that is not the case and I do not consider that exemplary damages are appropriate, and none are ordered.
The claim for exemplary damages for breach of the HHS is dismissed.
The tenant has claimed compensation for unlawful premises in the sum of 60- 70% of the total rent paid over the tenancy term (see section 78A of the Act).
The tenant estimates rent paid over the tenancy term at $40,625.00. The landlord estimates it at $39,890.00 but did not have clear rent records to prove this amount or the amount due.
The tenant considered that 30-40% of the rent over the entire tenancy would be a fair representation of what the tenancy was worth given that it is unlawful.
This is approximately $12,000.00 to $16,000.00 for the total term of the tenancy (almost exactly 2 years).
The tenant negotiated the initial rent on the basis of what she thought the premises were worth. She offered to pay an additional $25 per week for grazing as she thought the rent was reasonable at the time.
To my mind, the fact that the premises were later discovered by the tenant to be unlawful does not mean that she got 60-70% less than she bargained for throughout the term of the tenancy.
Whilst I accept that this situation has caused stress and hardship for the tenant, I also acknowledge that it has caused stress and hardship for the landlord too.
I also accept that he genuinely believed that he and the tenant were flatmates (although he accepts the Tribunal’s finding that, legally, this was not the case).
In this case, it is my view that any breaches on the part of the landlord must be assessed as at the lower end of the spectrum.
I have awarded $1,200.00 above for landlord breaches of the requirements to comply with the building requirements and, I do not feel it is appropriate to award additional monies to the tenant under this heading.
The claim is dismissed.
The tenant has claimed costs relating to preparation of her application and for counselling treatment in relation to some of the matters addressed by it.
The Tribunal can only order costs in certain circumstances (section 102 of the Act) and none of those circumstances apply in this case.
There was limited evidence provided in terms of the claim for counselling and, in any case, I consider these costs are not reasonably foreseeable and too remote from any alleged breach to properly be the responsibility of the landlord.
The claims for preparation costs and counselling costs are dismissed.
A number of other issues were raised by the tenant (for example, alleged breaches of her quiet enjoyment) but these either did not lend themselves to claims under the Act or were withdrawn at the hearing. Additional matters
Although the parties had different recollections of some matters, I found both to be credible and honest.
I consider that the landlord had not turned his mind to the changed relationship between himself and the occupiers of the converted garage. I believe that he considered the tenant to be a flatmate and his behaviour and tone towards her throughout the relationship supports this.
Conversely, the tenant clearly believed herself to be a tenant and she treated the landlord as her landlord and had expectations that he would respond accordingly.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant requested name suppression in the application and, as she has been substantially successful, suppression of her name and identifying particulars is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4982388 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4982388 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions