What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5062328 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 5062328?

Compensation: 30% rent decrease- 17…: $2,813.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $620.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide sta…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Holes in laundry wall…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Moisture tests reimbur…: $195.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power for running the…: $66.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Gate Latch: $3,402.86 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,864.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062328?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12017627-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5062328 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 5062328?

Compensation: 30% rent decrease- 17…: $2,813.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $620.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide sta…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Holes in laundry wall…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Moisture tests reimbur…: $195.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power for running the…: $66.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Gate Latch: $3,402.86 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,864.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062328?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12017627-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5062328 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062328 — net $8,360.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 Dec 2024	$3,864.00		Rent arrears to 27 Dec 2024
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$1,500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent		$750.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Compensation: 30% rent decrease- 17 Sep to 27		$2,813.57	30% rent decrease- 17 Sep to 27
Compensation: Damaged goods- shower leak		$620.00	Damaged goods- shower leak
Compensation: Power for running the dehumidifier		$66.00	Power for running the dehumidifier
Compensation: Moisture tests reimbursement		$195.50	Moisture tests reimbursement
Compensation: Holes in laundry wall and broken		$300.00	Holes in laundry wall and broken
gate latch		$3,402.86	gate latch
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,800.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Failure to provide statutorily		$750.00	Failure to provide statutorily
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,864.00	$12,224.93
Net award		$8,360.93
Bond		$1,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,360.93

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062328 — net $8,360.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 Dec 2024	$3,864.00		Rent arrears to 27 Dec 2024
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$1,500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to appoint an agent		$750.00	Failure to appoint an agent
Compensation: 30% rent decrease- 17 Sep to 27		$2,813.57	30% rent decrease- 17 Sep to 27
Compensation: Damaged goods- shower leak		$620.00	Damaged goods- shower leak
Compensation: Power for running the dehumidifier		$66.00	Power for running the dehumidifier
Compensation: Moisture tests reimbursement		$195.50	Moisture tests reimbursement
Compensation: Holes in laundry wall and broken		$300.00	Holes in laundry wall and broken
gate latch		$3,402.86	gate latch
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,800.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Failure to provide statutorily		$750.00	Failure to provide statutorily
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,864.00	$12,224.93
Net award		$8,360.93
Bond		$1,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,360.93

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
Suraj Ranjit must pay [The tenants] $8,360.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 26 February 2025 and 1 May 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and a refund of the bond.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide 5085892, 59623283 what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. Background
The tenancy commenced on 28 November 2020 and ended on 27 December 2024.
The tenants made an application to the Tribunal on 11 November 2024 and the landlord made a cross application on 2 December 2024.
It was clear at both hearings that the relationship had soured and become very acrimonious and that the parties had turned to the Tribunal for assistance only after having tried to negotiate terms of settlement they could both live with. Although there is evidence that these negotiations occurred, there is no evidence that any agreement was reached by the parties.
The landlord asserted the male tenant is a “handyman. The male tenant confirmed he is a qualified building professional/tradesman that has worked in the building and maintenance industry for decades and has a significant network in all aspects of the building industry. His involvement in assessing repair and maintenance issues and overseeing the implementation of some of the remedial work, when he was not invited to do so by the landlord or its contractors, has led to a significant strain on the tenants’ relationship with the owners of the property and their nominated agents. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Did the tenants owe rent to the landlord at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims the tenants owed $4,824.00 in rent arrears at the end of the tenancy and have provided rent records to support this claim.
The tenants dispute this and say that they owe $2,674.00 and have provided a comparison rent summary to support the amount of rent arrears they say they owe the landlord. This is because: a. They refute the lawfulness and validity of a rent increase of $20.00 per week (from $650.00 to $670.00) that the landlord says was agreed by the parties to commence from 6 April 2024, but never put in writing to the tenants, b. They paid $$670.00 per week for the period 6 to 12 April 2024; c. The parties agreed a 30% rent reduction (from 16 September 2024 until the leak in the shower was fully remediated), being a reduction from $670.00 per week to $469.00. The tenants applied this rent reduction to their payments from 19 October 2024 to 15 November 2024, and thereafter stopped paying any rent for the period 16 November to the end of the tenancy on 27 December 2024. 5085892, 59623284 Relevant law Requirement to pay rent in full and on time
Section 40(1)(a) of the RTA confirms that the tenants “shall pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement”.
The RTA provides for remedies such as compensation, general damages and exemplary damages for a landlord’s breaches of their RTA obligations. The RTA also allows for tenants to provide landlords with 14-day notices of any such breaches and where the landlord fails to remedy the breach(es) within the required timeframe the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for a work order requiring the landlord to remedy the breach or for monetary remedies such as compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages. The RTA does not allow tenants to unilaterally cease paying rent until the breaches are remedied to their satisfaction. Notice of rent increase
Section 24(1) of the RTA provides that “the rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all the following conditions are complied with: (a)the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b)that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c)the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given”.
Section 24(3) of the RTA confirms “A notice of an increase in rent lawfully given under this section shall, unless it is withdrawn by the landlord, have the effect of varying the tenancy agreement in accordance with the terms of the notice”.
Section 24(4) of the RTA provides a mechanism by which the landlord can issue a notice correcting any errors in a notice of rent increase and that it may apply to the Tribunal to have the amended notice upheld. Analysis and findings

Is the notice of the rent increase enforceable by the landlord?

The landlord did not give the tenants notice in writing of the increase, the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable. Therefore, pursuant to s24(1) of the RTA the rent increase is not enforceable, even if it was agreed verbally by the parties. The landlord was still legally required to follow up the verbal agreement with a lawful written notice and he did not. 5085892, 59623285
The landlord’s claim is dismissed for the rent arrears that relate to the 6 April 2024 increase due to his lack of evidence to support this claim on balance. The $650.00 per week rent stands unless it has been varied by agreement by the parties in writing at some other time during the tenancy. Is the 30% rent reduction negotiated by the parties enforceable?
The landlord confirmed that because of a leak in the shower, the tenants were unable to use one bedroom and a bathroom. The landlord confirmed it offered 16% rent decrease to the tenants to compensate them for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by this leak, until the issue was remedied.
The tenants responded to this offer seeking to negotiate a 30% rent decrease, compensation for damaged goods of $620.00, $66.00 for the additional power for running the dehumidifier, $195.50 for moisture tests and $1,809.00 from when the issue started (9 weeks prior). The tenants say they did not consider this offer to cover any replacement costs of items not dry cleanable, nor compensation for any further inconvenience they may suffer once the remediation work was commenced until it was completed.
The landlord initially did not agree to a 30% rent decrease as he says the bedroom and bathroom only consists of 16% of the house footprint. The tenants disagreed saying this area is 28% of the square meterage of the house. The parties eventually came to verbal agreement that the tenants would receive a 30% rent reduction in recognition that the tenants’ living area was also so 30% of the living space was impacted by a combination of the mould/leak issues.
During this negotiation, on 15 October 2024, the tenants say that the owner told them that the rent decrease would be provided in a lump sum at the end of the remediation works, and not during the period of inconvenience. The tenants confirmed they wanted the rent reduction during the period of inconvenience as well as during the remediation work.
The tenants say the landlord agreed to write this oral agreement up as the meeting had been fractious and the parties wanted to be clear about the terms of their agreement before finalising it. The landlord called tenancy services and was told to finalise the amount being agreed as full and final settlement and this needed to be in writing and signed by the parties as this payment was a good faith payment and the landlord was not legally required to offer the tenants a rent reduction.
The landlord emailed this agreement to the tenants on 16 October 2024. Contained within the agreement was a confirmation that this was his final offer for all leak related claims. The tenants say that this was not what the parties had agreed orally, and the tenants would not agree to sign this variation of the oral agreement.
The parties confirmed that after the landlord stated this was the final settlement amount, he would offer to the tenants, the relationship soured, and the tenants sent the landlord a list of issues they say had never been on 27-29 October 2024. 5085892, 59623286
The evidence produced by the parties proves this rent reduction was not fully agreed between the parties, but the tenants applied this reduction to their payments from 19 October to 15 November 2024 and thereafter stopped paying any rent for the period 16 November to the end of the tenancy on 27 December 2024.

What rent arrears are owed to the landlord?

The landlord’s rent summary shows the tenants were in $4,824.00 in rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. This rent summary shows:
The landlord began charging $670.00 rent per week from 6 April 2024 to 12 27 December 2024 (38 weeks), being an over charge of $760.00;
The tenants paid $469.00 rent per week from 19 October 2024 to 9 November 2024 (4 weeks) when the rent should have been $650.00 per week. This means the tenants underpaid a further of $181 per week for 4 weeks, being a total of $724.00;
The tenants did not make payment of rent for 6 weeks from 16 November 2024 to 27 December 2024, being an under payment of 6x $650.00= $3,900.00.
$3,900.00 + $724.00 - $760.00 =a total amount of rent arrears owing to the landlord of $3,864.00.
The tenants rent summary shows they think they owe rent arrears of $2,674.00 based on:
The amounts due for rent weekly from 19 October 2024 to 27 December 2024 being $455.00 per week (being 30% of $650.00);
The tenants paying $469.00 per week for 4 weeks; and
The tenants not paying any rent for 6 weeks.
I am satisfied that the evidence put to me proves on the balance of probabilities that the tenants owe the landlord rent arrears of $3,864.00 to 27 December 2024 based on a weekly rental rate of $650.00 per week.

Are the tenants 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. 5085892, 59623287
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. Wardrobe and bathroom gib lining damage
The landlord submits the tenants caused damage to the wardrobe and bathroom gib lining during the tenancy, the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the landlord should be compensated for that damage.
The landlord submitted when the mould was noticed on 16 September 2024 (mould in carpet) the male tenant cut holds in the carpet and the gib before he reported the issue to the landlord and before he had given the landlord time to investigate and remediate the mould related damage. The landlord says this made the site more dangerous.
In addition, the landlord claims the male tenant turned builders away and did not accept what they were saying needed to be done to remedy the issues as he had expressed a view that “90% of builders in Auckland are useless” and had recommended a friend of his from Christchurch. The landlord the male tenant got more aggressive and abusive as the landlords sent in a number of builders to investigate the issue and give quotes for remedial work.
The landlord says it is not within the tenants’ rights to cut open the wall and that although the wall in the wardrobe needed to be cut open for the remedial work, the bathroom wall did not need to be cut open as much as what the male tenant had done.
The landlord produced recordings of the meetings that prove the male tenant engaged in language that suggest a level of racism and ageism being directed by him towards the landlord. 5085892, 59623288
The tenants say they called the landlord on the phone and told him what was happening with mould, documented everything they did, and that the repair and maintenance issues were not dealt with when they were raised so they investigated these issues themselves to be able to be more specific about the remedial work required. The male tenant confirmed he is a professional building tradesman that works in this area, and he sought other professional tradesmen’s opinions on the issues the tenants faced. He says he even got an asbestos professional to give advice after the contractor had carried out the initial investigation into the leak damage and mould.
The landlord says that the male tenant is a handyman. The male tenant disputes this and says he is a qualified tradesman. The landlord say they got qualified and registered builders and architects to investigate the issues and relied on the advice from these professionals.
The male tenant made a comment “if these professionals knew about the building code they should know about the asbestos code” and they did not as “when the builders removed the gib in the bathroom they disturbed the asbestos on the ceiling”.
I was not given any evidence to prove what the male tenant’s qualifications, experience, knowledge, skills or abilities are, but the evidence he provided to the Tribunal indicated that it was more likely than not he had worked in the building industry undertaking repair and maintenance jobs for some decades and that he has extensive networks that included asbestos experts and licenced master builders.
The landlord says that his contractor, Ryan, undertook the remediation work in the bedroom and bathroom areas of the house and that he informed the landlord that whilst the majority of the gib would have been repaired and replaced, as there was mouldy gib in the wardrobe, there was one part of the gib behind the toilet and behind the door that were patched due to the male tenant having cut holes in it when the contractor could see with his phone that those areas were ok. Further, he stated that one square behind the toilet could have been treated for mould instead of being replaced and he could have just replaced the lining at the back side of the gib, that had accumulated mould from the shower. The male tenant disagreed and stated that this gib needed replacing, that mould treatment would have been insufficient to kill the mould permanently and it would have grown back once the wall was resealed.
The contractor was not called by the landlord to give evidence and I am not satisfied that the landlord had met the evidential burden of proof to support the claim that the tenants cost him more money because they had removed more gib than was needed to address the leak and mould issues in the bedroom and bathroom. 5085892, 59623289
The landlord did not produce an invoice that broke down the works completed, and the products used. The invoice produced provided a breakdown of the types of work but not specific areas of work. The male tenant stated that he was present when the work was completed and that no mould treatment was undertaken by the contractor. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord has met the required evidential burden of proof to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and even if he had, he has been unable to quantify his alleged loss. Therefore, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for damage by the tenants to the bathroom/toilet wall. Failure to allow entry- s48(4)(b)
The landlord claims the tenants have not allowed their contractors/representatives entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter for the purposes of installing a ground moisture barrier on 11 November 2024.
Section 48(2)(cb) of the RTA provides that “the landlord may enter the premises. for the purpose of complying, or preparing to comply, with the healthy homes standards (including any prospective requirements of those standards), at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry”.
Section s48(2)(d) of the RTA also provides that the landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry”.
The tenants failing to allow the landlord or his representatives to enter upon premises in circumstances where landlord or his representatives are entitled to enter without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See sections 48(2), 48(4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In an email from the landlord, dated 29 October 2024, the landlord gave the tenants notice that contractors would be attending the property to install a ground moisture in response to the tenants 5 October 2024 request for the installation as part of an update on the progress with the scope of works being undertaken. The landlord proved he notified the tenants of all the dates the contractors would be at the house and sent text confirmations.
The tenants agreed that a moisture barrier had to be installed but say it should not have been installed until after the repairs and remediation work of water ingress, bathroom/bedroom leak and mould had been completed. 5085892, 596232810
The landlord states on 11 November 2024, his builders were installing the ground moisture barrier. At the time the building contractors were 80% through the shower repair. The male tenant confirmed that he was concerned that the builders were installing the ground moisture barrier when the water ingress issues that cause water to pour in under the house had not been addressed, the mould on the barge boards, joist and underflooring of the house had not been removed and replaced and the landlord and its building contractors had ignored the black mould identified in a Biodet report the tenant gave the landlord on 15 June 2023. The 7 November 2023 Precise Consulting report also confirms that there is dampness and mould issues that require a more detailed assessment, including airborne mould sampling and surface samples of suspect growth. This had never been completed and the leaks, moisture and mould issues had increased over the following 12 months.
The male tenant also confirmed that he went down to the builder and asked what the subcontractors were doing and told him that he was concerned that the work would have to be redone as the mould and water ingress issues had not been addressed. Further he says that when the builder ignored the male tenant, the male tenant conveyed that the builder and his subcontractors were no longer welcome at the house, and they needed to “piss off”.
The contractor then called the landlord to report that the sub-contractors were so initiated that they had left the premise. The landlord in turn called the male tenant. The landlord submitted an audio recording of that conversation where the male tenant aggressively yells at the landlord “you need to line the floor with polythene to dry the house out” ... and I don’t give a flying rats arse who does the fucken work...”.
The male tenant confirmed that he, the landlord and the building contractor all had an obligation under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) not to let the sub-contractors work under the house with black mould and asbestos without PPE and without having addressed the mould and asbestos issues. The male tenant took this responsibility seriously and reported these safety issues and concerns to WorkSafe. The male tenant produced evidence that he was advised by WorkSafe to require the sub-contractors to leave the site until it was investigated, and a decision made whether it was safe for them to continue the work. The male tenant says he was shocked that the landlord’s builder failed to meet the building and health and safety regulations and did as instructed by WorkSafe.
The landlord says there was no mould under the house or on the barge boards and the flooring was dry and so they arranged for the ground moisture barrier to be laid. He could see no reason why it should not be laid. Further he says his brother/agent had not agreed to the sub-contractors being asked to remove themselves from under the house and he had not had any contact from WorkSafe, except for the asbestos issues well after the male tenant had insisted the sub- contractors stop work. Additionally, the landlord says that WorkSafe do not have the jurisdiction to address black mould issues on a work site. 5085892, 596232811
The HSWA places a duty on landlords, their contractors working at a residential premise and the tenants to ensure the workplace is free from health and safety risks. Toxic mould is a hazard that can pose a significant risk to worker health.
In New Zealand, WorkSafe NZ has the authority to stop work at a site where toxic mould is identified, particularly if it poses a significant health and safety risk to workers. They can use various enforcement powers, including issuing stop work notices. This is especially true if the mould is causing or likely to cause harm.
The builder stated that he had been under the house and there was nothing that posed any health risks to the sub-contractors and that the soil under the house was dry at the time the moisture barrier was being installed. The builder took photos of the house sub floor that shows there was some water around the perimeter of the house but not under it.
The tenants produced a video and photographs as well as professional reports that prove that the subfloor was still wet at the time the ground moisture barrier was being installed.
The builder confirmed that he had not charged the landlord any extra money for the sub-contractors being delayed in laying the ground moisture barrier and the work continued after WorkSafe indicated it had not identified any health and safety risks to the workers.
I find that the male tenant acted reasonably in all the circumstances. He has information that led him to hold a reasonable belief that the sub-contractor’s health and safety may have been at risk when he asked them to leave the premise while the potential risks were investigated. This does not constitute an unlawful act by the tenants.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages because the landlord has failed to establish sufficient evidentiary proof to prove his claim on the balance of probabilities. Further, the tenants have provided a compelling defence to this claim.

The landlord claims the tenants have breached their obligations under section 46(2) of the RTA not “to alter any existing lock or similar device, or add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the landlord given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out”.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord say the tenants installed digital lock without his consent. 5085892, 596232812
The landlord says he became aware of this lock on 5 October 2024 when he went to the premise, and that there was a dog on the premises that has scratched the deck, paint etc when the tenants did not have consent to have a dog on the premise.
The tenants say the landlord had agreed to them having a dog 1 April 2024 and to the concept of them having a dog 18 months prior. The landlord denied giving the tenants consent and there was nothing in writing to support the tenants contention that consent had been given.
The tenants say that after the premise was broken into, they had raised issues with the lock with the landlord. They proved they had photographed the damage to the lock and sent this information to landlord and the landlord did nothing about it.
The tenants say that for their security and peace of mind, they installed the digital lock around 3 October 2024 and sent the landlord the code on 5 October 2024 (they punched the code in and showed the landlord when he was at the house) and showed the landlord again when he came on 15 October 2024 for the reduced rent negotiation.
. The tenants confirmed they took the digital lock with them at the end of the tenancy and replaced it with a deadbolt.
Section 46(1) of the RTA confirms that a “landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure”.
I am satisfied the landlord did not investigate the tenants’ security concerns after they had been burgled and requested a new lock as they say the old lock had been damaged and compromised. It would be unjust to require the tenants to pay exemplary damages when they addressed an issue that the landlord failed to investigate and remediate.
I am also satisfied that the landlord was not disadvantaged in any way because of the installation of a new door lock as he; a. Was given the code to the lock twice; b. The lock was removed and replaced when the tenancy ended; c. It is not in the public interest to penalise tenants that take reasonable steps to install locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure when the landlord fails to do so after a break in.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages because the landlord has failed to establish sufficient evidentiary proof to prove his claim on the balance of probabilities. Further, the tenants have provided a compelling defence to this claim. 5085892, 596232813

TENANTS CLAIMS

Failure to lodge bond

The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and did not provide them with a receipt for the bond paid.
Section 19(1)(a) of the RTA requires a landlord to give the tenant a written receipt, signed by the landlord, showing: (i) the address of the premises to which the payment relates; and (ii) the amount and nature of the payment; and (iii) the date of the payment; and (iv) the name of the tenant.
Section 19(1)(b) of the RTA requires the landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching these obligations 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 tenants produced evidence that shows: a. They paid the bond of $1,300.00 to the landlord on 14 November 2020; b. The bond lodgement form was completed and signed by the parties on 15 November 2020; and c. The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre until 11 October 2024.
The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre for 1,427 days.
The landlord did not explain why he waited so long to lodge the bond and also confirmed that he had not issued the tenants with a receipt for the $1,300.00 bond paid to him. He did complete and sign a bond form.
I find the landlord has committed two unlawful acts.
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.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants. I am satisfied the landlord should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after his receipt of it and that he was required to issue a receipt.
The landlord could have sought advice from the Tenancy Services website and/or the Tenancy Services Call Centre. The website contains resources that the landlord could have used to inform him of what to do with the bond. 5085892, 596232814
The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenants is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenants, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after 14 November 2020 and did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre for 1,427 days; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting their bond money that should have been lodged wit it on trust for the tenants’ benefit, unless it is proven the tenants owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a period of 1,427 days during the tenancy, and it should have been. The landlord retained the bond without the tenants’ knowledge of who held their bond; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.
I consider the award of the maximum penalty available because of the duration of the breach. Failure to appoint an agent
Section 16A(1) of the RTA requires that a landlord must have agent in New Zealand, if out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days.
Section 16A(4) confirms that a landlord who appoints an agent under this section must, immediately after appointing the agent, (a) notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service; and (b) if a bond is held in respect of the tenancy, notify the chief executive in the approved form of those particulars.
Breaching s16A of the RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says he informed the tenants that he was leaving New Zealand on 11 April 2024, that he was intending to reside in Australia. He says Aimee left in 5085892, 596232815 May 2024 but told the tenants the landlord was still to be first point of contact and that the landlord’s father and /or brother would come down if something needed to be investigated or remediated. Further, he says he sent an email to the tenants on 7 October 2024 with agent contact details. The landlord has not produced any communications to the Tribunal that proves he met his statutory obligations pursuant to s16A(4) of the RTA to provide the tenants with the agents contact details or that he notified the Bond Centre of the appointment of an agent.
The tenants refute this and say that the landlord booked a time to come to see them on 1 April 2024 to inform them of his and his wife’s plans to move to Australia, that the tenants still had to contact the landlord and his wife if any issues arose and would send his brother or father-in-law to investigate any issues that required someone to be in New Zealand to investigate and address. At no time did they provide the tenants with contact details for these pseudo- agents. The landlord made it clear that he would liaise with these pseudo-agents and not the tenants. As such, in reality no agent was appointed and no details for a New Zealand agent were provided to the tenants within the statutorily required timeframe.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages ( half the maximum penalty) because: a. The landlord intentionally did not ensure a New Zealand agent was appointed when he left to live in Australia, nor did he met his statutory obligations pursuant to s16A(4) of the RTA to provide the tenants with the agents contact details or that he notified the Bond Centre of the appointment of an agent. He did ask family members to assist him if he had to have any repairs and maintenance issue investigated but expressly told the tenants he would remain their point of contact; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the landlord having a New Zealand based agent that they can communicate any issues and concerns with and have these investigated and addressed in a timely manner; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of its obligations to appoint an agent and notify them and the Bond Centre of who that agent is and their contact details; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching his obligations to appoint an agent and notify the tenants and the Bond Centre of who that agent is and their contact details for the protection of both parties’ interests. Did the landlord breach his section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations?
[The tenants claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). 5085892, 596232816
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, 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 section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Bathroom leak and mould issue
The landlord says he received an email and multiple videos from the tenants on the 17 September 2024 from the tenants who had discovered a leak in the bathroom and mould in the master bedroom wardrobe wall. This video showed that before the tenants had communicated this issue to the landlord, they had cut large holes in the gib wall lining of the wardrobe wall. 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]. 5085892, 596232817
On 18 September 2024, after being notified by the tenants of the mould issue in the wardrobe, the landlord's father-in-law, one of the appointed agents, visited the property to assess the situation and to provide a dehumidifier to the tenants' while professionals were contacted to assess the source of the mould issue.
Between 20 September 2024 and 3 October 2024 two different builders assessed the issue and both identified the shower as the source of the problem. The male tenant is a
The male tenant contacted the landlord and claimed the builders did not understand the situation and expressed a preference for him and his company to handle the repairs themselves and invoice the landlord. The landlord was not agreeable to this suggestion as it involved major renovation work that could cause further issues in the relationship between the tenants and the landlord if something went wrong with the work.
The tenants then suggested an ex-builder friend of theirs from Christchurch could undertake the work at a fair rate on a cash in hand basis. The landlord did not agree to this suggestion either, which it says cause considerable frustration and offence to the tenants, leading to a marked deterioration in the landlord-tenant relationship from that point forward.
On 5 October 2024, the landlord agreed to meet the tenants at the property to discuss the issues and the proposed timeframe for remediation works to be carried out.
The tenants requested that the landlord consult a mould testing company for their recommendations and have a ground moisture barrier installed to prevent more dampness from the subfloor entering the house. During this meeting, the tenants indicated that if the issues were not resolved promptly, they would be unable to continue residing in the property. The landlord proposed an alternative, offering to cover the tenants’ moving costs if they chose to vacate the property to allow the landlord to carried out the major repair works. The tenants rejected this offer preferring to remain in the property while the remedial works were undertaken.
On 8 October 2024, the landlord called the tenants and informed them: a. The bathroom/wardrobe remedial works would begin at the end of November, and it was envisaged the work would take approximately 3 weeks; b. The landlord had consulted a mould removalist/specialist; and c. The landlord had arranged for a ground moisture barrier to be installed.
On 8 and 15 October 2024, the landlord and the tenants discussed the tenants request for a rent reduction/compensation from when the leak damage occurred to the date the remedial works were completed. 5085892, 596232818
The landlord initially offer the tenants a 16% rent decrease for the loss of amenity of one bedroom and a bathroom. The tenants say that their living area was impacted as well and wanted a 30% rent decrease, compensation for damaged goods of $620.00, $66.00 for the power for running the dehumidifier and $195.50 for moisture tests and $1,809.00 from when the issue started (9 weeks) to the completion of the remedial works. The tenants considered this offer not to cover any replacement costs of items not dry cleanable and any further stress and inconvenience the tenants may suffer once the remediation work was undertaken.
Both parties agreed that 30% of the living space was impacted by the mould/leak issues in their negotiation on 15 October 2024. The tenants say that the owner told them that the rent decrease would be provided in a lump sum at the end of the remediation works, and not during the period of inconvenience. The tenants wanted the rent reduction during the period of remediation work and inconvenience. The landlord agreed to this in principle and also agreed to write this oral agreement up. Because the meeting had been fractious, the landlord called tenancy services after the meeting and was told to finalise the agreed payments as a full and final settlement offer, in writing, and to record that the payment was being made in good faith and it was not legally required to make such a payment.
The landlord emailed this amended agreement to the tenants on 16 October 2024, as a full and final settlement offer for all leak related claims. This was not what the parties had agreed orally, so the tenants did not agree to this variation of the oral agreement. They stated that they were still in the process of assessing the costs of the damage to their belongings. The relationship soured further, and the tenants provided the landlord with a further list of issues that the tenants say were not addressed.
During a follow up visit to the property on the 17th of October, the landlord discovered further holes had been cut into the gib wall lining in another area of the property, being the west wall of the bathroom. Again, these holes had been cut into the gib without the tenants seeking approval from the landlord doing so. The landlord emailed the tenants the raise concerns about these additional holes in the gib and to request the tenants do not damage the property further as the landlord had appointed a professional builder to handle the bathroom repair works, which was where the source of the leak had been identified.
On 11 November 2024, when the shower repairs were 80% complete, the builders started to install the ground moisture barrier and the tenants objected to this work being undertaken before the mould on under the house had been removed, the water ingress issues under and around the house resolved and the builder’s sub-contractors had the correct PPE gear. The tenants ordered the sub- contractor’s offsite after speaking to WorkSafe.
On 12 November 2024, the tenants tested the bedroom ceiling for asbestos The tenants again spoke to WorkSafe, who placed a prohibition on the work area until 5085892, 596232819 the site was checked for black mould and asbestos. The landlord had an asbestos test done and no asbestos risk was found in the rooms being remediated but a piece of asbestos found in a waste bin outside. The landlord organised the removal of the bin and got the air quality in the house checked to validate there was no other asbestos risk in the house. This process delayed the work at the premise.
In December 2024, the landlord contacted the builder and asked him to resume the remediation works. He could not recommence the work until January 2025, after the Christmas New Year period.
The tenants moved out of the premise on 27 December 2024, so the leak related work was not complete when they moved out.
I am satisfied the landlord took steps in a reasonable timeframe to get the bathroom leak investigated, quoted and/or repaired and that the Christmas New Year period and some of the tenants conduct in part contributed to the delay in having the bathroom leak and leak damage fully remediated before they moved out. In addition, the complexity of the issues being complained of by the tenants took the landlord time to fully assess, quote and implement.
I find that the basis of the bargain the parties negotiated on 15 November 2024, in relation to this claim, is a fair and reasonable one that was mutually acceptable to both parties before the landlord decided to try and use the agreed sum to stop the tenants from making any further claims against him in relation to this tenancy.
.I am also satisfied on balance that the tenants have proven they suffered significant stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity while the leak and leak damage was being investigated, assessed and remediated.
I do not find that the landlord has intentionally failed to meet his obligation to provide and maintain the premise in a reasonable state of repair, or for any failure to have the repairs carried out in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Therefore, I do not find it appropriate to award the tenants exemplary damages for this claim.
I award the tenants the following compensation under this head of claim, for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity the tenants suffered while the leak and leak damage was being investigated, assessed and remediated, based on the verbal terms the parties agreed at the 15 November 2024 meeting: a. A 30% rent decrease of $195.00 per week for the ( based on full rent being $650.00 per week) for the 14 weeks and 3 day period between 17 September 2024 and 27 December 2024. This is a total rent rebate of $2,813.57; b. Compensation for damaged goods of $620.00; c. Compensation of $66.00 for the power for running the dehumidifier; and d. Compensation of $195.50 for the moisture tests carried out by the tenants. 5085892, 596232820
The tenants, in their application to the Tribunal, also sought additional compensation of $4,986.00 for the replacement of clothing that was damaged because of the mould in the wardrobe that had resulted from the leak. In New Zealand, a landlord is generally not required to compensate a tenant for damaged clothing due to a leak in a residential tenancy, unless the damage was caused by the landlord's negligence or failure to maintain the property. Tenants are typically responsible for insuring their own belongings, including clothing, against such damage. There has been no evidence that this damage to the tenants clothing was because of the landlord's negligence or failure to maintain the property to a reasonable standard. The damage occurred because of a shower leak that was not reasonably foreseeable or ignored after it was reported to the landlord and was fixed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. I therefore dismiss this claim. Tree issue
The tenants say that on 6 September 2022, a tree had to be removed from the property that the tenants confirm they told the landlord needed to be removed earlier as it was about to fall onto a neighbouring property at number 11 due to the serious flooding issue on the property.
I am unsure when this was first raised and as such, I dismiss the claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not maintain the tree to a reasonable standard and that the landlord failed to investigate and remedy the overgrown tree in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, after it was raised with the landlord. Dangerous extractor fan in the bathroom
The tenants say they got electrocuted if they touched the extractor fan as it was live and had not been installed correctly.
The landlord confirmed the bathroom fan was replaced after tenants moved out and would have fixed this during the tenancy, but the tenants had never notified the landlord about this. It was fixed with the shower repair.
The tenants say there were verbal conversations about this issue during the tenancy, but there were no written notification about the live fan. The tenants confirmed they had identified this issue 2 years prior. They say it was coupled with the complaints about the mould but no text messages, emails or video recordings of this issue could be produced.
I dismiss the claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants raised this issue with the landlord and it failed to investigate and remedy the issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, after it was raised. 5085892, 596232821 Holes in laundry wall and broken side gate latch
The tenants say a plumber came on 18 July 2022 to fix the leaking pipes under the house and left two holes in the laundry wall that required repair.
On 29 July 2022, the tenants emailed the landlord to inform him that the holes still needed repair. The tenants confirm that wo years later, the male tenant re- gibbed and plastered the holes himself in September 2024 as the landlord had done nothing.
The tenants say they also raised the broken gate latch at the start of the tenancy and nothing was done to repair it.
I find the tenants should receive a compensation for the period they have had to live with the stress and inconvenience from the holes in the laundry wall and the broken gate latch and having to repair this themselves. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $300.00.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenants have lived for two years with these issues and although the landlord knew of these issues it refused to remedy them; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with living with these issues and repeatedly following the landlord up and reminding it of its obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for this breach will be at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. Water ingress issues and mould under the house
The tenants say that on 23 September 2021, they first advised the landlord of a major issue with flooding across the driveway, from number 9 [street name suppressed], that was pooling at the end of the pathway and under the house, as well as flowing to the property at 15 [street name suppressed]. They produced video and photographic evidence to support this claim.
On 3 June 2022, the tenants say they met with the landlord and again complained of a major issue with flooding across the driveway, from number 9 [street name suppressed], that was pooling at the end of the pathway by the front deck and under the house, as well as flowing to the property at 15 [street name 5085892, 596232822 suppressed]. A follow up email was sent to the landlord after this meeting with video and photographic evidence from 23 September 2021 and 3 June 2022 flooding issues.
On 15 June 2022, the landlord visited the property again to discuss these issues further and then subsequently dealt with getting some leaking pipes under the house replaced.
A plumber came on 18 July 2022 to fix the leaking pipes.
On 28 August 2022, the tenants spoke to the landlord again about the water flooding across the driveway from number 9 that went under the house causing the house to be damp. The tenants say the issue was not just the natural flow of the land, as the landlord suggested, but the gutters at number 9 that required cleaning and broken guttering and downpipes fixed.
On 28 January 2023, the landlord checked if everything was ok after the first extreme weather event. The tenants advised that there was significant water flowing onto the property from number 9 as those issues had not been dealt with and were exacerbated by the storm.
On 6 February 2023 the tenants raised the flooding issue again and sent photographs and videos of water pouring off the gutter and downpipe next door, across the driveway and under the house.
On 11 June 2023, the tenants emailed the landlord again advising of the significant moisture under the house, of the mould growing under the house and that it was negatively impacting their health. They also advised that a commercial fan be used under the house to try and dry it out. The landlord replied that he would pay for the fan and the increased power and that he would talk to the neighbours about the blocked guttering and downpipe related flooding issues.
On 13 June 2023, the male tenant went under the house and took mould samples to get tested and to inspect the extent of the damage. Videos and photographs of the state of this area was produced at the hearing. Biodet Laboratories tested the mould from under the house on 15 June 2023 . The results show three types of mould, one of which is Stachybotrys (black toxic mould). The tenants sent the landlord a copy of this report and an explanation about the effects of black toxic mould.
On 15 June 2024, the landlord’s visited the premise to discuss the black mould under the house and to formulate a management plan. The landlord also agreed to the male tenant diverting waterflow from going under the house by building a small wall funnelling the water into the drain. The landlord agreed to have further mould testing carried out, but never did so. The landlord also advised he would source a dehumidifier to help take excess moisture out of the inside of the house.
On 6 July 2023, the tenants informed the landlord the fan was required for an additional week, enquired if he had found a dehumidifier and confirmed the male 5085892, 596232823 tenant had installed a plastic strip around the front to stop water ingress under the house and would do a concrete strip in front of this and a line of bricks to divert the water into the drain. The tenants also asked for an update on next door addressing their guttering and downpipe blocks. The tenants flowed this up again on 12 July 2023.
On 17 July 2023, the landlord confirmed he had spoken to next door and would pay for the additional week’s hire age of the fan, but did not mention what had happened to the dehumidifier he had promised to remove the excess moisture from inside the house.
On 31 July 2023, the landlord paid the tenants for the work they had done at the front of the house.
On 1 April 2024, the tenants advised the flooding and under house mould issues had not been dealt with and the underneath of the house was constantly wet, causing ongoing dampness inside the house. The landlord advised he would talk to the neighbours again about the guttering and downpipe issues and get the water ingress and mould issues investigated further.
On 29 August 2024, the tenants took video footage of extreme water flooding across the driveway from the neighbouring property again.
On 19 September 2024, the landlord’s agent dropped off a dehumidifier for the bedroom to assist with the excess moisture removal from the bathroom leak, but not to address the impact of the water ingress under the house.
On 20 September 2024, the tenants asked for an update on the under-house water ingress and mould issues. They advised they were emptying the dehumidifier in less than 24 hours and provided photographs.
On 30 September 2024, the male tenant discussed the under-house flooding issues and mould with the landlord’s builder that was fixing the leaking shower/bathroom. He told the male tenant he would check it out. The male tenant advised care as there was evidence of asbestos and black mould under the house.
On 5 October 2024,the landlord and tenants discussed the scope of works for the bathroom leak and wardrobe and the tenants informed them the under-house water ingress and mould was still an issue that needed to be addressed and should be addressed at the same time as the bathroom leak issues. The landlord disagreed and stated they would address the inside leak issues first.
On 7 October 2024, the landlord informed the tenants he had contacted WaterCare and told them how to check the meter for leaking pipes. No one came to conduct any such checks. On 8 October 2024, the landlord asked the tenants to carry out this test.
On 29 October 2024, the builder started work on the bathroom leak issue but nothing further was mentioned bout addressing the water ingress issues under the house or the mould. 5085892, 596232824
On 11 November 2024, sub-contractors arrived to install a ground moisture barrier under the house. The male tenant raised issues about the sub-contractors doing this before addressing the water ingress, mould and asbestos issues and that they were going under the house without the required personal protective equipment. WorkSafe was called and work halted on the site until asbestos testing was carried out, which was completed on 12 November 2024.
On 21 November 2024, the landlord emailed the tenants a WorkSafe clearance and next steps communication that advised the assessor had cleared the iste for work to continue.
On 1 December 2024, the tenants emailed the landlord an invoice for the moisture testing they had done to prove how damp the house was. This invoice has never been paid.
The tenancy ended on 27 December 2024 and the tenants say the water ingress and mould issues had not been addressed.
The landlord says the slop of the land means that water from number 9 flows across the yard on number 9 and then drains on to number 15. They say it is designed to be this way and that this is natural drainage using the typography f the land. The produced diagrams that show this. Further, they say that the neighbour at 9 had the gutters and downpipes cleaned and the excess water from that had stopped. The tenants had videos and photographs at numerous times during the tenancy that prove this statement was not accurate.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, the tenants raised the water ingress, under house flooding and mould issues with the landlord numerous times from 23 September 2021, the issue was never properly investigated by the landlord, and it was never explained to the tenants why no action was being taken or any solutions. The only solutions were suggested and implemented by the male tenant and the landlord complained that his intervention, that had been agreed to and paid for by the landlord, had made the issue worse. The tenants should not have been having to address this issue. The landlord should have had its own contractors carry out an investigation and remedy the water ingress and mould issues. The landlord did not.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period they have had to live with the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of the water ingress and under house mould issues of rebate of $20.00 per week for the period 23 September 2021 to 27 December 2024 (170 weeks and 1 days). being a rent rebate of $3,402.86 ordered.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenants have lived for 170 weeks and 1 days with dampness and mould issues that affected their health and with the stress and inconvenience with 5085892, 596232825 constant flooding of the yard. The landlord knew of these issues and refused to properly investigate or remedy them; b. The tenants suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience associated with the water ingress, mould and dampness issues and having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind it of its obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 170 weeks and 1 day; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for this breach will be at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. Healthy Homes Standards
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants claims that over the course of the tenancy the landlord has not complied with the ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage standards and that this is a breach of section 45(1)(bb) and is an unlawful act under 45(1A) of the RTA.
The tenants seek exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter the landlord from committing the same type of unlawful breaches in the future. 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 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. 5085892, 596232826 b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
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.
Tenancies that commenced after 1 July 2019 and before 1 July 2021 are not required to meet all the healthy homes standard until 1 July 2025, but must comply with the Smoke Alarms and Insulation Regulations set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 from 1 July 2019.
The tenancy commenced on 28 November 2020, and there is no evidence that this agreement was renewed at any stage during the tenancy.
The tenancy was initially fixed term for the period 28 November 2020 to 28 November 2021 and thereafter it became periodic automatically as it was never renewed. Therefore, the premise had to be fully healthy homes compliant by 1 July 2025 and had to comply with the insulation standard and smoke alarm regulations immediately. There has been no suggestion by the tenants that the landlord has failed to comply with his insulation or smoke alarm obligations. Therefore, the tenants claim for exemplary damages for breaches of the moisture ingress, drainage and ventilation standards are dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed 2 intentional breaches of s45(1)(a) of the RTA, 1 of s45(1)(b) and 1 of s45(1)(bb). These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants living in cold and damp conditions and experienced 5085892, 596232827 considerable periods of stress, inconvenience and loss of the amenities they were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief for these breaches during the tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed 3 unlawful acts intentionally and caused the tenants stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity.
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 its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenants ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being 25% of the maximum penalty available. Did the landlord provide the tenants with the statutorily required signed healthy homes compliance statement, detailed information on the level of compliance of the premise with the healthy homes standards, an insulation statement and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under sections 13A(1CA), 13A(1A) and 13A(2) of the RTA.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA), 13A(1A) and/or s13A(2) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00 for all breaches. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Signed healthy homes compliance statement
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, 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 including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement. 5085892, 596232828
The landlord does not dispute failing to provide a signed healthy homes compliance statement in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenants claim is upheld. The landlord did not have any other explanation for this breach other than it must have been an oversight. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Insulation statement
The tenants claim the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
In New Zealand, landlords have been required to provide a signed insulation statement in all new tenancy agreements since July 1, 2016. This statement needs to detail: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord does not dispute failing to include a signed insulation statement in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenants claim is upheld. The landlord did not have any other explanation for this breach other than it must have been an oversight. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Insurance information
Section 13A(2) of the RTA states “the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: a. If the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and b. If the premises are insured, a statement: c. setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and d. informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or66J(5))”.
The tenants’ tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information.
The landlord accepted he did not provide this information but gave no justifiable reason for failing to do so.
I find the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act. 5085892, 596232829 Exemplary damages for failure to provide the statutorily required information in the tenancy agreement.
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(1A), 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and the statutorily required insurance information s13A(2) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The owner should have reasonably known he had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise not knowing if it complied with the insulation or other healthy homes standards and if the landlord had tenant insurance to offset the cost of any damage to the property for which the tenants may be liable. The tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise did not fully comply with the healthy homes’ standards, but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenants that he guarantees the rental premises will meet all the healthy homes standards by 1 July 2025, what needs to be done to ensure full compliance and that it met the insulation standard and smoke alarm regulations at the start of the tenancy as well as if the landlord has tenant insurance to reduce the tenants’ liability for potential damages to the property; 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, and statutorily required healthy homes and insurance information in compliance with the clear requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the smoke alarm regulations. 5085892, 596232830

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in his claims. His application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants 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.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The landlord applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details. The landlord has not been substantially or wholly successful in his proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct and breaches of his obligations.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062328 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062328 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenants owe rent to the landlord at the end of the tenancy?

Is the notice of the rent increase enforceable by the landlord?

What rent arrears are owed to the landlord?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenants owe rent to the landlord at the end of the tenancy?

Is the notice of the rent increase enforceable by the landlord?

What rent arrears are owed to the landlord?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenants owe rent to the landlord at the end of the tenancy?

Is the notice of the rent increase enforceable by the landlord?

What rent arrears are owed to the landlord?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants alter the locks to the premise without consent?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenants owe rent to the landlord at the end of the tenancy?

Is the notice of the rent increase enforceable by the landlord?

What rent arrears are owed to the landlord?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants alter the locks to the premise without consent?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions