What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4987774 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 4987774?

Compensation: $1,090.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4987774?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4987774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10995179-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4987774 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 4987774?

Compensation: $1,090.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4987774?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4987774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10995179-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22A Aubrey Street, Regent, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4987774 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4987774 — net $3,417.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repair hallway wall (consent	$700.00		Repair hallway wall (consent
Compensation (consent		$1,090.00	Compensation (consent
Exemplary damages		$3,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$700.00	$4,117.00
Net award		$3,417.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,417.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Northland Real Estate Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,917.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wilson represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Background
The tenancy started on 12 May 2023 and ended on 2 August 2024.
The property manager who first dealt with the tenants, and another property manager, are no longer employed by the landlord. The Tribunal records that Ms Wilson only recently became involved, and she was not involved in the matters that have resulted in this application.
The premises were not provided in a reasonable state of repair, nor did they comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The tenants’ first property manager gave assurances that repairs would be completed at the premises, the carpets would be replaced, and the outside vines and vegetation growth would be cleared.
The promised repairs were either not done or done towards the end of the tenancy. Following an inspection where the (second) property manager simply advised the tenants by way of a 14-day breach notice that she was ‘disappointed at the condition of the premises, without specifying why, the tenants had contractors clean the carpets and do the required work to remove the overgrown vines and vegetation.
The tenants sought reimbursement for that work. The landlord refused to reimburse the costs, stating that no approval for the work had been given.
The tenancy agreement stated that the premises were HHS compliant, although the statement of compliance was never signed. There was no external HHS inspection and report, although that is not a statutory requirement. It is something that prudent property managers would consider desirable though. Issues •Should the Tribunal award compensation? •Have the tenants proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Relevant legal considerations

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. The tenant’s compensation claims are for actual losses – reimbursement of 2 invoices for carpet cleaning and for garden work. Combined, the tenants seek $1,090.00.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, 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 RTA. Those factors are: 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. Discussion Compensation
After the tenants gave evidence, Ms Wilson agreed that the landlord must reimburse them the invoiced amounts they had paid for the work they had done, which was always the landlord’s responsibility to do.
Her concession was correct. The Tribunal would have awarded the tenants the compensation they sought because the landlord failed to comply with its responsibilities at the start of the tenancy. That failure was compounded by the actions of the former property managers throughout the term of the tenancy.
The order for compensation, with the agreement of the landlord, is made by consent. Exemplary damages
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), 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.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes, and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Breaching the obligation to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.
I find Northland Real Estate Limited committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the HHS. The tenants gave evidence they were told not to use the heat pump until filters were replaced. That did not happen until May 2024, about 3 months before the tenancy ended and a year after it started. The downpipes were rusted and filled with debris. They leaked badly. The photos produced in evidence show that the gutters need replacing.
I find that the landlord acted intentionally. The first property manager completed the Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement to indicate that the premises were HHS compliant. But they were not. And the statement was not signed.
The landlord’s unlawful act had an effect on the tenants. The premises were cold, draughty, and damp. A housing assessment they had done (not a HHS assessment) stated that mould was present. The tenants produced a photo showing black mould under some wallpaper.
The landlord’s actions were against the tenants’ interests and were against the public interest. Landlords (especially professional landlords) are expected to know about and comply with their statutory responsibilities.
Parliament’s intention when enacting the HHS was to improve the quality of rental housing stock; to make rental properties warmer and drier. Parliament intended serious sanctions for landlords who do not comply by providing for such a high amount of exemplary damages.
I award the tenants exemplary damages of $3,000.00 for this unlawful act both to punish and to deter. The landlord’s non-compliance was significant as it involved breaching more than one of the HHS and it continued for most, and in some cases all, of the time of the tenancy. Agreed deduction
There is no landlord application before the Tribunal. However, the parties agreed that the tenants would pay the landlord $700.00 for the repair of damage to a wall in the hallway. I have allowed that amount by consent as a deduction from the amounts awarded to the tenants.
The agreement reached is in full and final settlement. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants compensation of $1,090.00 by consent, exemplary damages of $3,000.00, and the filing fee of $27.00, a total of $4,117.00. From that will be deducted $700.00 which the parties agreed on for the repair of damage. The landlord will therefore pay the tenants $3,417.00. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as their application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as it has not been successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4987774 — net $3,417.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repair hallway wall (consent	$700.00		Repair hallway wall (consent
Compensation (consent		$1,090.00	Compensation (consent
Exemplary damages		$3,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$700.00	$4,117.00
Net award		$3,417.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,417.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Northland Real Estate Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,917.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wilson represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Background
The tenancy started on 12 May 2023 and ended on 2 August 2024.
The property manager who first dealt with the tenants, and another property manager, are no longer employed by the landlord. The Tribunal records that Ms Wilson only recently became involved, and she was not involved in the matters that have resulted in this application.
The premises were not provided in a reasonable state of repair, nor did they comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The tenants’ first property manager gave assurances that repairs would be completed at the premises, the carpets would be replaced, and the outside vines and vegetation growth would be cleared.
The promised repairs were either not done or done towards the end of the tenancy. Following an inspection where the (second) property manager simply advised the tenants by way of a 14-day breach notice that she was ‘disappointed at the condition of the premises, without specifying why, the tenants had contractors clean the carpets and do the required work to remove the overgrown vines and vegetation.
The tenants sought reimbursement for that work. The landlord refused to reimburse the costs, stating that no approval for the work had been given.
The tenancy agreement stated that the premises were HHS compliant, although the statement of compliance was never signed. There was no external HHS inspection and report, although that is not a statutory requirement. It is something that prudent property managers would consider desirable though. Issues •Should the Tribunal award compensation? •Have the tenants proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Relevant legal considerations

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. The tenant’s compensation claims are for actual losses – reimbursement of 2 invoices for carpet cleaning and for garden work. Combined, the tenants seek $1,090.00.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, 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 RTA. Those factors are: 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. Discussion Compensation
After the tenants gave evidence, Ms Wilson agreed that the landlord must reimburse them the invoiced amounts they had paid for the work they had done, which was always the landlord’s responsibility to do.
Her concession was correct. The Tribunal would have awarded the tenants the compensation they sought because the landlord failed to comply with its responsibilities at the start of the tenancy. That failure was compounded by the actions of the former property managers throughout the term of the tenancy.
The order for compensation, with the agreement of the landlord, is made by consent. Exemplary damages
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), 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.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes, and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Breaching the obligation to comply with the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.
I find Northland Real Estate Limited committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with the HHS. The tenants gave evidence they were told not to use the heat pump until filters were replaced. That did not happen until May 2024, about 3 months before the tenancy ended and a year after it started. The downpipes were rusted and filled with debris. They leaked badly. The photos produced in evidence show that the gutters need replacing.
I find that the landlord acted intentionally. The first property manager completed the Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement to indicate that the premises were HHS compliant. But they were not. And the statement was not signed.
The landlord’s unlawful act had an effect on the tenants. The premises were cold, draughty, and damp. A housing assessment they had done (not a HHS assessment) stated that mould was present. The tenants produced a photo showing black mould under some wallpaper.
The landlord’s actions were against the tenants’ interests and were against the public interest. Landlords (especially professional landlords) are expected to know about and comply with their statutory responsibilities.
Parliament’s intention when enacting the HHS was to improve the quality of rental housing stock; to make rental properties warmer and drier. Parliament intended serious sanctions for landlords who do not comply by providing for such a high amount of exemplary damages.
I award the tenants exemplary damages of $3,000.00 for this unlawful act both to punish and to deter. The landlord’s non-compliance was significant as it involved breaching more than one of the HHS and it continued for most, and in some cases all, of the time of the tenancy. Agreed deduction
There is no landlord application before the Tribunal. However, the parties agreed that the tenants would pay the landlord $700.00 for the repair of damage to a wall in the hallway. I have allowed that amount by consent as a deduction from the amounts awarded to the tenants.
The agreement reached is in full and final settlement. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants compensation of $1,090.00 by consent, exemplary damages of $3,000.00, and the filing fee of $27.00, a total of $4,117.00. From that will be deducted $700.00 which the parties agreed on for the repair of damage. The landlord will therefore pay the tenants $3,417.00. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as their application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as it has not been successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4987774 — Exemplary damages at 22A Aubrey Street, Regent, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4987774 — Exemplary damages at 22A Aubrey Street, Regent, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions