What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5077198 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 5077198?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077198?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12204284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5077198 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 5077198?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077198?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12204284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

49 St James Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5077198 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5077198 — net $1,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: breaching duties on receipt of bond	$500.00	breaching duties on receipt of bond
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain or repair	$500.00	failure to maintain or repair
Exemplary damages: failure to ensure tenancy agreement provided to tenant	$250.00	failure to ensure tenancy agreement provided to tenant
Exemplary damages: failure to provide signed insulation and Healthy Homes statements with tenancy agreement	$250.00	failure to provide signed insulation and Healthy Homes statements with tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,527.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5077198 — net $1,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: breaching duties on receipt of bond	$500.00	breaching duties on receipt of bond
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain or repair	$500.00	failure to maintain or repair
Exemplary damages: failure to ensure tenancy agreement provided to tenant	$250.00	failure to ensure tenancy agreement provided to tenant
Exemplary damages: failure to provide signed insulation and Healthy Homes statements with tenancy agreement	$250.00	failure to provide signed insulation and Healthy Homes statements with tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Real Homes New Zealand Limited As Agent For Owner must pay [The tenant/s] $1,527.00 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[Mr J] attended the hearing on behalf of the applicants.
This hearing was initially set down for a full day on Monday 5 May 2025. The Sunday evening prior to this, the landlord’s agent sent an email to the Tribunal containing written submissions and explaining that she would be unable to attend due to unexpected illness.
The applicant, as he had not had an opportunity to review the landlord’s submissions and to give her an opportunity to be heard, consented to an adjournment.
The landlord sent another email on the morning of the next hearing saying that she was, once again, unable to attend due to unexpected illness. As she had also lost her voice, she was unable to be contacted on the telephone.
An adjournment was not requested, and the hearing went ahead in her absence. Failure to lodge bond
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 of the Act.
The landlord acknowledged that the bond had not been lodged at the bond centre. It said that this was due to an error in their system which was identified in a six-monthly audit. The bond was not paid to the bond centre when the matter came to light as the tenants had already indicated that they wished to leave the tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
The landlord’s agent is an experienced property manager. In those circumstances it seems very unusual that systems would not already be in place to ensure that bonds were dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act. At the very least, the bond should have been lodged immediately the error came to light regardless of the stage of the tenancy.
The tenant had indicated that they wished to leave but the landlord had not been able to successfully find a replacement tenant. There was no certainty that the tenant was going to be able to end the tenancy early or that there would not be a bond dispute at the end of the tenancy.
In all circumstances, it is the intention of the legislation that the tenant’s bond money be safely held on the tenant’s behalf, at the bond centre.
The landlord, in usual circumstances, has no claim against the bond without either the tenant’s consent or an order of the Tribunal.
Although the bond was paid in full to the tenants at the end of the tenancy, it is in the public interest to ensure that landlords, particularly when they are professional property manager’s, deal appropriately with tenant bond monies.
The tenant is awarded $500.00 in exemplary damages for landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the bond centre within the appropriate timeframe (or at all). Failure to maintain premises
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Under section 45, a landlord must, amongst other things, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord included a condition in the tenancy agreement under a ‘special notes’ heading which read, “The Tenant acknowledges that the window in Bedroom 3 is scheduled to be replaced, in its entirety. This may cause some disruption to the tenant occupying that room, for a short period of time (day or two).”
The tenant gave evidence that this scheduled replacement of the reasonably large set of windows was also confirmed orally prior to the tenancy commencing.
The tenant acknowledged that the outside of one of the sets of windows (in bedroom three) was taped (where the window met the frame) with duct tape when they viewed the property and throughout the tenancy.
He also acknowledged that the tape was removed from the outside in order to photograph the damaged window for the Tribunal hearing (before being replaced).
The tenancy agreement was signed by the (then) three tenants and returned to the agent on 9 April 2024.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the signed contract and confirmed that she was to meet a builder at the property on the morning of 10 April 2024 “to review the window that needs replacement”. She suggested hiding a key to enable access by the tenants the following day when the tenancy was to begin.
The bond payment was confirmed, and the agent hid a key outside as agreed and said that the “balance of keys and letter box key will be in a kitchen drawer”.
On 17 April the tenant emailed the landlord with some early concerns regarding the property including a blocked shower drain, faulty kitchen fan, and some lights which were not working. The email was a follow up to a text sent two days earlier with the same concerns raised.
The landlord replied on 22 April apologising for being difficult to get hold of and said she would arrange a plumber to fix the shower and an electrician to check the fan and lights.
The shower was fixed after reminders stressing the urgency of the problem on about 1 May 2024, but the fan and lights were never fixed or checked by an electrician.
The landlord texted on 1 July to say that she had been unwell and unable to chase tradespeople to complete work but would do so that week.
The tenant responded (on 3 July) expressing sympathy and reminding the landlord of the outstanding issues including replacement of the window and repair of the fan and lights (as well as a promised carpet clean and repair of the oven which was a more recent problem). The tenant referred to a “compete lack of communication” and requested a rent reduction until the matters were remedied.
The landlord responded that she had no notice of any issue with the oven (correct) and extractor fan (incorrect). The oven was repaired on 16 July.
On 17 July the landlord emailed in relation to a request to have one tenant removed from the tenancy. She also listed the maintenance issues pending and this included carpet clean (as promised on moving in), extractor fan and lights, and the window replacement amongst other things.
When the remaining tenants were unable to find a replacement co-tenant for the third bedroom, they asked if they could end the fixed tenancy early and this was agreed provided that a new tenant could be found. The tenancy was listed, and viewings were being held for prospective tenants.
After one of these scheduled viewings, the tenant said that the property manager walked through the property with him and said that the owner was no longer intending to replace the damaged window due to the cost of doing so.
This was the first the tenant had heard that the replacement was not to happen and prompted the issuing of a 14-day notice listing a number of issues that had not been attended to, including the window replacement.
The tenant gave evidence that the 14-day notice was issued as the landlord had been unable to find a new tenant to take over the property and they considered that it would be even more difficult to do so if there was no intention to have the window replaced.
In written submissions the landlord said that this notice was not received. In response to that assertion the tenant provided copies of the notice sent to the usual email address that they used to contact the landlord and also a screenshot showing the curser hovering over the landlord’s name and confirming that the email address was correct. It seems unusual that the landlord received other email correspondence but not the 14-day notice.
Other submissions from the landlord in relation to the window did not align with evidence provided by the tenant who seemed to have a better recollection of events and provided documentary evidence to support that recollection (including emails sent by the landlord). The landlord did not provide any evidence to support its position.
The landlord did not replace the window and also failed to have an electrician check the fan and lights as referred to above.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord clearly signalled that the window was scheduled to be replaced. This was confirmed in writing in the tenancy agreement, orally according to tenant evidence and in emails.
The landlord also acknowledged (by email) that the fan and lights had not been attended to even though they had been raised very early in the tenancy.
The tenant told prospective flatmates that the window was to be fixed and considered that the lack of interest in the room was at least partly due to the state of the window.
The tenant was concerned that prospective tenants (to take over the tenancy in full) were being put off because of the state of the window and was worried that a new tenant would not be found leaving the remaining two tenants in the financially difficult position of managing the full rent themselves on an ongoing basis.
They issued the 14-day notice to address that concern and there was no direct response to that.
Although the landlord did not respond to the 14-day notice she did, once the owner consented, allow the tenants to end the tenancy before the expiry of the fixed term. The tenancy ended on 23 December 2024.
There were other more minor matters that the landlord also failed address during the tenancy, but I find that these had limited effect on the tenant.
The lack of action (as promised in the tenancy agreement) in relation to the damaged window clearly had a significant impact on the tenants.
The tenant is awarded $500.00 in exemplary damages in relation to failures to maintain, primarily the failure to replace the window in bedroom three as stated in the tenancy agreement. Failure to provide signed tenancy agreement
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant is unsure as to whether the tenancy agreement was signed by the landlord as they did not receive a copy of the agreement and no signed copy was provided by the landlord to the Tribunal.
The tenant said that a key was hidden at the property at the beginning of the tenancy and that the remainder if the keys were in a drawer in the kitchen (as referred to above). They said that there was no tenancy agreement left at the property.
The landlord’s submissions state that a copy of the agreement was left on the bench with the house keys but her own messages to the tenant confirm that the tenant’s recollection is more accurate.
The landlord did not provide a copy of the agreement signed by the landlord. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
As above, the landlord is very experienced and should have systems in place to ensure that they comply with the obligations of the Act. They have not done so.
The tenant is awarded $250.00 in exemplary damages in relation to failure to provide a signed copy of the tenancy agreement as required by the Act. Failure to provide signed insulation and healthy homes statements
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not included insulation details or a Healthy Homes Statement in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) of the Act.
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.
A landlord must also include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement as follows: a. that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb)...; and b. Including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). the landlord See section 13A (1CA) of the Act.
Breaching each of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Real Homes New Zealand Limited As Agent For Owner failed to provide such statements.
The tenants did not receive a signed copy of the tenancy agreement (see above) but had access to the copy of the agreement that the initial three tenants had signed and sent back to the landlord by email prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
This agreement did not include either insulation or healthy homes statements.
I find Real Homes New Zealand Limited As Agent For Owner has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
The tenants requested a copy of the healthy homes assessment report from the landlord and at that time the property manager apologised for not having provided it at the beginning of the tenancy. There was no insulation or healthy homes statement attached to the assessment.
The healthy homes assessment referred to the window (above) being “monitored”. The tenant said there was no monitoring of the window (and no formal property inspections) throughout their tenancy.
The tenants were concerned that the property was not healthy homes compliant for this and other reasons.
As above, the landlord claims to be an experienced property manager. These requirements are not new, and all landlords must comply with them.
The tenant is awarded $250.00 in exemplary damages in relation to failures to provide both the Healthy Homes Statement and the insulation statement as required by the Act.
The tenants made a number of other claims in their application for both compensation and exemplary damages.
This included: a. partial compensation for rent for bedroom three during the tenancy of the initial third tenant. This claim must fail as the third tenant is not included in this application and paid her rent in full without any (known) complaint throughout her tenancy. She left the property for reasons unrelated to the condition of the bedroom. b. compensation for rent paid for bedroom three since the departure of the third tenant. This must also fail. Limited evidence was provided to show that the state of the window caused the tenants to be unable to full the third bedroom. Some prospective tenants were offered an alternative room and still declined to take up the tenancy which suggests the state of the room was not a determinative factor. This matter is better addressed by exemplary damages as above. c. Alleged breach of Healthy Homes moisture standards in relation to the window in bedroom three for which limited evidence was provided and which is better addressed under the exemplary damages claim above. d. Alleged breach of the Healthy Homes standards relating to draughts for which no suitable evidence was provided. The Healthy Homes assessment provided suggested that the home was free from external draughts.
These claims and all other tenant claims not already addressed in this order are dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The applicants requested name suppression in their application and as they have been partially successful suppression of their names and identifying details is ordered.
This order has taken longer to be issued than would usually be the case as I had scheduled holiday leave just after the hearing date. This was explained to the tenant at the hearing but I include the information here for the benefit of the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5077198 — Exemplary damages at 49 St James Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5077198 — Exemplary damages at 49 St James Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions