What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5059213 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 5059213?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Door And Lock: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5059213?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5059213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11783519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5059213 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 5059213?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Door And Lock: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5059213?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5059213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11783519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28 Lakeside Drive, Pahurehure, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5059213 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5059213 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$200.00		Failure to lodge bond
Repairs: door and lock		$200.00	Repairs: door and lock
Total award	$200.00	$200.00
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5059213 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$200.00		Failure to lodge bond
Repairs: door and lock		$200.00	Repairs: door and lock
Total award	$200.00	$200.00
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 30 April 2025.
The tenancy began on the 16 July 2022 and ended on the 19 August 2024. The property is large family home with a pool.
The tenants confirmed at the hearing that the claims that they wish to be determined are: a. That the landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 days of payment. The tenants seek exemplary damages for this breach. b. That the landlord failed to provide details of compliance with healthy homes standards in the tenancy agreement and details when requested by the tenant. c. That the landlord asked them to do maintenance that was the landlord’s responsibility. d. The filing fee.
In their application the tenants claimed compensation being a portion of the rent paid of $10,381.69 and exemplary damages pursuant to s19(2) RTA, s45 (1A) (in respect of the failure to maintain and the Healthy Homes standards) and failure to provide healthy homes statements including insulation in the tenancy agreement s13A RTA as well as the filing fee. However, at the hearing the tenants confirmed that they just seek a return of their bond and exemplary damages for the failure to lodge the bond and the failure to provide healthy homes statements.
At the hearing the tenants did not proceed with their failure to maintain claim or the claim that the landlord asked the tenants do work that was the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord claims: a. That the tenants damaged the property by:
putting a hole in the master door bedroom, which also broke the door handle, the door jamb and cracked the paint on the ceiling above.
That the tenants allowed water to get in the kickboards and the oak flooring that were newly installed in 2021.
Putting nail holes and hanging pictures in the lounge damaging the paint work. b. That the tenant failed to notify the landlord of an ongoing rat problem at the property, which lead to rats damaging the ceiling insulation, chewing through wires for the pool pump (which lead to the pool pump needing replacement), chewing through the pool scoop and chewing through a bathroom pipe which caused a leak in the plumbing. In the alternative the landlord also says that the tenant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent rat damage. c. That the tenant failed to bring to the landlord’s attention a cupboard door which had ‘dropped’ and which scraped onto the stone bench causing a grove/mark in the bench top. d. That at the end of the tenancy the Barracuda and vacuum pipes were missing. e. That the tenants repaired damage to the property which were substandard, or not of a similar quality to the rest of the home and f. The filing fee.
The landlord seeks compensation for these items which the landlord has agreed to cap at the amount of the bond.
The landlord had previously claimed that the tenant had not properly repaired the rail of the stairs and had damaged the carpet but told me at the hearing that they not longer wished to prosecute those claims. The bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepted that the tenant paid the bond at the beginning of the tenancy (August 2022) but the bond as not lodged until March 23 2024. I find they have committed an unlawful act. The landlord says that this was an oversight, due to the landlords’ separation and each landlord thinking the other had done it. The landlords also had considerable personal stress over this time. They say that the retention of the bond was not intentional and when they picked up (whilst getting documents in order for relationship property purposes) they immediately lodged the bond.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
The landlord has had other tenancies and is an experienced landlord. The landlord says it is a genuine oversight, I consider that because they are an experienced landlord who should have had systems in place, that intention can be inferred, especially when it took over a year to discover that the bond was not lodged.
I therefore make an award of exemplary damages, I make a minimal award of $200.00, to reflects the intention of the landlords, that the tenants’ bond was not actually withheld from them, and the public interest. Bonds often represent the most amount of money owned by the tenant and there is considerable risk to this money if it is not deposited with the bond centre. The public expects that landlords who do not comply with the obligation to deposit bonds in the bond centre have awards made against them. Healthy Homes Statements.
The tenants claims that the Healthy Homes Statements were not included in the tenancy agreement.
Under s 13A(1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement or if the statement includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide the insulation statement, or up to $900.00 for knowingly providing false or misleading information.
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 s 109(3) RTA).
The landlord breached s13A(1CA) because the Healthy Homes Statements were not included in the tenancy agreement. The landlord provided a copy of the tenancy agreement, and the Healthy Homes Statements were not included. The landlord says that the statements were given separately to the tenant, but could not provide the Tribunal with a copy of those statements.
Whilst I am satisfied that there is a breach, I make no award for exemplary damages because an application for exemplary damages for breaches of s13A(1CA) must be made within 12 months of the breach occurring (s109(2)(b)) This application was made after the tenancy ended and more than 12 months after the tenancy agreement was signed. Therefore, no award of exemplary damages can be made.
The tenants also say that they requested a statement from the landlord showing the landlord’s level of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards at a meeting in March 2024 but were not given any evidence of compliance. The landlord says that they could not provide a healthy homes statement showing compliance at that time, because the rat damage to the insulation had made the insulation non-compliant.
Section 45(1AC) RTA provides that iff 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.
I find that the landlords were in breach of s454(1AC) by not providing the tenant with the requested information by the end of the tenancy. However, I make no award for compensation because I do not consider that the tenants suffered any loss. There had been no concerns about compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards during the tenancy and the tenants could not identify any issues (apart from mould in a wardrobe- the cause of which was not known) which may have alerted the parties to any breach of the standards. I accept that the landlords wanted to rectify the insulation issue before providing a statement to the tenants. The door.
Tenants are liable for damage that is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants accept that the hole in the door (they called it a dent, but the photographs provided by the landlord clearly show a hole) was made by a visitor to the property. The hole is intentional damage.
The tenants say that the visitor was trying to get in the master bedroom which was locked.
I am satisfied that the lock was damaged during this incident as well.
The landlord claims that the door jamb and the ceiling paint was cracked as a result of the incident.
The landlord and the tenant agreed that the tenant could replace the door. However, the landlord wanted the tenant to provide details of the door etc before it was replaced and the person who was to do the work. The tenants say that they tried to do this, but it was difficult to find an exact door that matched what had been there before and fitted the door jamb. As it was shortly before they moved out, they ended up finding a replacement door and hanging it, and also replacing the lock with one from bunnings.
The landlord wants to replace the door, handle, and repair the broken door jam and fix the painting. She has promised her new tenants that she will do this work, once she has had the matter determined by the Tribunal.
I accept that the replacement door was MDF and the original door was timber. I accept that the door handle was inferior and has subsequently broken, I consider that it is likely that the door will need to be painted and the door handle replaced and I award $200.00 as compensation for this claim. This reflects the age of the original door, and that the landlord has not lost amenity, they have been able to rent out the premises at a higher rent per week.
I am not satisfied that the door jamb and the ceiling became cracked as a result of the incident. There were no photographs provided of the door jamb and the ceiling before the incident which allowed comparison, and I can see from the photographs that the tenant submitted that the door still works. It does not appear that the door jamb has been damaged. The oak flooring and kick boards.
The landlord says that the tenants have allowed water to ingress into the kickboards causing them to swell and onto the oak flooring which has caused it to discolour.
The tenants say that they never noticed any swelling and that these complaints were made only after the tenancy ended.
The tenants say that the landlord was very particular about the flooring (which was new in 2021) they say that they followed instructions in the tenancy agreement and never wet mopped or steamed the floors. They always cleaned with a damp and well drained mop head or with a cloth. The tenants say that the landlord never raised the issue of water damage with them during the tenancy.
The landlords have not proven that the tenants damaged the kick boards or the flooring, I say this because: a. The landlord did not complain or notice the damage during the tenancy. b. There is no evidence that the tenants ever wet mopped on the floor. c. The tenants say that they were never told of the laundry hose tap leaking, and that it did not leak. They dispute that the plumber that had been to the house in February 2024 to fix the bathroom leak even went into the laundry. The tenants say that they never noticed water on the floor or kickboards. d. The tenants photographs taken on the day the tenancy ended and submitted in evidence show the disputed area clearly and there is no visible damage. The grove/mark in the stone bench top.
The landlord says that the tenants have damaged the stone bench top which was only installed in 2021 by allowing a cupboard to scrape along the surface causing a grove. The landlord has not replaced or repaired the damage but has provided a quote to do so.
The landlord says that one of the cupboards has ‘dropped’ but says that the tenants should have brought this to her attention.
The tenants says that they never even noticed that the cupboard had dropped and the stone was being marked by the cupboard door.
I am not satisfied that the tenants caused damage to the bench top for the following reason: a. The tenants’ photographs at the end of the tenancy show this area. The alleged damage is not visible. b. Fair wear and tear is wear from using an item in the usual way. If wear occurs as a result of usual use, then the tenant is not liable. There is no evidence that the tenants used the cupboards in a way that they would not normally used. c. The landlord did not notice any defect to the stone in her inspections. The tenants say that they did not notice any issue either. d. A tenant who does not notice a defect cannot be liable for any damage that arises as a result of the defect. Rats.
On or about the 8 February 2024 the tenants’ pool cleaners noticed that the pool pump was shorting. The tenants immediately reported this problem to the landlord. A short time later the pool pump failed completely. The cause of the problem was later found to be that rats had chewed wires.
On or about the 15 February 2024 the tenants notified the landlord of a leak from an upstairs bathroom. When the landlord’s plumber investigated, they found a pipe had been chewed by a rat causing a significant hole in the pipe.
Upon further investigation it was found that the rats had chewed the insulation in parts of the ceiling destroying it, including insulation that landlord had only installed in 2021 when they renovated the ensuite.
The landlords say that the tenants were aware of rats at the property and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent rats.
The parties agree that the tenants advised the landlord of evidence of rats at the property in May 2023. The landlord says that they told the tenant to bait the rats and provided details of the rat bait they had used before.
The tenants says that they used both bait and traps for the rats.
The landlord says that between May 2023 and February 2024 the tenants never reported an ongoing problem with rats – even though the tenants told the landlord in correspondent on the 8 February 2024 that the rats had been an “ongoing problem”
A landlord has the obligation to maintain the property, the tenant has an obligation to notify the landlord of any damage to the property, and to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant has failed to notify the landlord of any damage because: a. The tenants notified the landlord immediately of any damage when it was discovered, such as the damage to the pool pump and bathroom pipe. b. The tenants took steps to control the pests such as trapping and baiting. I consider that the steps that were taken were reasonable and commensurate with the problem. c. I am satisfied that the tenants kept the property reasonably clean and tidy and that whilst there was an issue regarding the bins for a couple of weeks. (This was due to Council changing the bin type, and therefore not picking up rubbish) the tenants tell me that they disposed of their rubbish at their work. d. I do not consider that the tenants had an obligation to report the issue with rats on an ongoing basis between May 2023 and February 2024 because the tenants genuinely thought that the rats were being dealt with by bait and trapping. During this period the tenants only caught one or two rats. They did not hear rats in the ceiling or regularly see rats at the property.
I am satisfied that the rat issue was a naturally occurring problem and not something that occurred because of the tenants’ actions or inaction.
The landlord’s claims for damage caused by the rats, being the as the cost of the pool pump, the bathroom leak and the replacement insulation is dismissed.

Were items missing at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the Baracuda, and some of the vacuum pipes were missing from property.
The tenants say that they never used the Baracuda and the vacuum pipes, because they had the pool valeted. They believe that those items were there at the end of the tenancy.
Tenants are obliged to leave all chattels provided by the landlord in the tenancy at the premises at the end of the tenancy. (see s40(1)(e)(v) RTA).
In the tenancy agreement it notes that chattels include pool cover and ‘equipment’. The Baracuda and vacuum hoses are mentioned in another clause in the tenancy agreement.
I am not satisfied that on the evidence provided that the Baracuda and the hoses were missing because the landlord says that they were missing, and the tenants say that they were not. In the absence of further evidence, I am left with two conflicting accounts and therefore I cannot be satisfied that it is more than likely that these items are missing.
The landlords’ claims for these items is dismissed. Other matters.
The landlord also claimed that the tenant did not keep the pool reasonably clean and tidy and did not complete back washes causing the media to fail prematurely.
The tenants had the pool valeted during the tenancy by two different pool companies. The valets occurred every fortnight in the summer months and every four weeks in the winter months. The landlord says that in between the valets the tenants should have done backwashes and run the pool filter.
The tenants says that they did backwashes when required.
I am not satisfied that the tenants failed to keep the pool clean and tidy or caused damage to the pool by failing to do backwashes, I say this for the following reasons: a. The evidence from the pool valet company was that the pool cleaning was regularly done, and the pool was reasonably clean and tidy. There was an issue as to whether a timer was working, but the tenants say that they performed backwashes as instructed. b. There was no evidence from either of the pool companies that the cause of the media failure was something that the tenants had done. In one of the invoices, it notes that media should last between 5-10 years. This media was 4-5 years old. I consider it more than likely that the media wore out.
The landlord also claimed in their tenancy application form that the tenants had painted a room downstairs without permission. The landlord gave the tenant a 14-day notice on the 4 March 2025 in respect of a number of items at the property, one of which was painting a downstairs bedroom. Despite noting that the tenants had done this painting the landlord did not seek a remedy for the painting – only that the tenants remove paint that was on a sill and blind, which the tenants did. The landlord has not proven that the tenant’s paint work was damage and therefore this claim is dismissed. Filing
As both parties have not been substantially successful in their claims, each party will bear their own filing fees. Suppression.
The tenant has asked for suppression. I grant suppression because the tenant has been mostly successful in defending the landlord’s claims and has been successful in her claims for the failure to lodge the bond and the failure to provide Healthy Homes Statements in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord did not seek suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5059213 — Exemplary damages at 28 Lakeside Drive, Pahurehure, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5059213 — Exemplary damages at 28 Lakeside Drive, Pahurehure, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were items missing at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were items missing at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions