What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5091532 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 5091532?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $817.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $481.86 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,009.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091532?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11363605-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5091532 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 5091532?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $817.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $481.86 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,009.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091532?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11363605-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5091532 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5091532 — net $1,625.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27.11.2024	$1,009.96		Rent arrears to 27.11.2024
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Window replacement	$481.86		Window replacement
Compensation – lack of amenity		$817.50	Compensation – lack of amenity
Exemplary damages – breach of s. 45(1A) RTA		$2,500.00	Exemplary damages – breach of s. 45(1A) RTA
Total award	$1,691.82	$3,317.50
Net award		$1,625.68
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,625.68

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5091532 — net $1,625.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27.11.2024	$1,009.96		Rent arrears to 27.11.2024
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Window replacement	$481.86		Window replacement
Compensation – lack of amenity		$817.50	Compensation – lack of amenity
Exemplary damages – breach of s. 45(1A) RTA		$2,500.00	Exemplary damages – breach of s. 45(1A) RTA
Total award	$1,691.82	$3,317.50
Net award		$1,625.68
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,625.68

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,625.68 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s], immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s], the tenant, and [The landlord’s representatives], representing the landlord, all attended the hearing in person.
The tenant has applied for compensation, failure to maintain, breach of Healthy Homes Standards regarding heating, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord originally also applied for outgoings but clarified at the start of the hearing that that claim should have read compensation. Given the evidence provided by the landlord prior to the hearing accorded with a compensation claim, the landlord’s claim for outgoings was amended to be one for compensation instead of outgoings. Tenant’s claims Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said the landlord failed to maintain the premises in the following ways during the tenancy: Overgrown trees and green waste a. The tenant said the trees at the property were overgrown and were not trimmed or maintained, that some of the tree branches snapped in a storm and that she had been worried about this. She said she notified the landlord about the overgrown trees in April 2024 and asked them to cut back the trees. The property manager said she did not believe the trees were overgrown and did not recall receiving requests from the tenant to trim and maintain the trees. The landlord provided copies of an Ingoing Inspection report dated 26 May 2022 and an Outgoing Inspection report dated 28 November 2024. From the photographs in these reports, it was difficult to see the condition of the trees outside the property clearly. The tenant did not provide any other evidence about the trees being overgrown and not maintained, such as more detailed photographs of her own, or texts or emails to the landlord about this. As such, I dismiss the tenant’s claim about the landlord’s failure to maintain the trees at the property, due to insufficient evidence of this. b. The tenant indicated there was a pile of green waste that had been left at the back of the property from before she started her tenancy, and that she had asked this be removed by the landlord. She felt this was dangerous for her young child. She reported the green waste filled about a medium sized shed in size. The property manager confirmed the size of the green waste, as per the tenant’s estimate of it and said the owner had been asked repeatedly to remove the green waste but had told them they could not afford to remove the green waste. As such, the green waste was not removed during the tenancy. The tenant said she had received a quote for around $450.00 to remove this green waste, but did not provide this quote. The tenant’s quote was not contradicted by the landlord. I accept it was likely this was the approximate cost to remove the green waste. I note weekly rent ranged during the tenancy from $520.00 to $555.00 to $525.00 per week and so do not accept the landlord’s reason for not removing the green waste as being unable to afford to do so. On the evidence, as outlined here, I find the landlord failed to maintain the property by refusing to remove a significant amount of green waste from the property that was there at the start of the tenancy and throughout the tenancy. Vinyl floor tiles c. The tenant said the vinyl floor tiles started to lift at the edges, mainly in the kitchen and laundry, in 2023. She provided photographs of the vinyl tiles lifting at the edges. She indicated she showed the owner these during a visit on 15 December 2023 and the owner did some quick repairs, which involved using a type of staple gun to nail them down. However, the tenant said the edges of the vinyl tiles continued to lift after the owner’s quick repair of some tiles. The tenant said she showed these tiles to the property manager in December 2023 and asked if they would be repaired. She said she was told the owner was returning in July 2024 to fix them but reported these tiles were never repaired during her tenancy. The tenant believed these tiles with their lifting edges, in high-traffic areas such as the kitchen and laundry, were a safety risk for her family, and that anyone could easily have tripped on them. d. The property manager confirmed she had seen areas of the vinyl panels in the kitchen and laundry lifting. She said that, whilst it did not look great, she did not think they were a problem or dangerous. She confirmed she had notified the owner of this, who said he would repair them, but this never eventuated during the tenancy. Based on the evidence of the edges of the vinyl floor tiles in areas of the kitchen and laundry lifting, as per photographs provided by the tenant, that the tenant brought this to the landlord’s attention, the landlord confirmed they were aware of this but this issue was not resolved by the landlord, and the potential safety hazard to the tenant’s family from this, I find the landlord failed to maintain the property by not repairing the lifting edges of the floor tiles in the kitchen and laundry particularly. Window latches e. The tenant reported that there were window latches at the back of the lounge window, which became loose and one eventually came off, and also were window latches in a small room/bedroom, where part of the wood had broken off that it was attached to. She provided photographs of these windows, which showed a missing latch on one window and a gap in the wood at the bottom of the other window. She said she notified the landlord of this issue during an inspection in April 2024 and that this issue was not repaired or addressed during her tenancy. f. The property manager acknowledged the issue and said she had put in a work order for a handyman, who had gone to the property but then told her the job was outside of his scope, that she then told the owner, and that she was not sure whether the windows were fixed prior to the end of the tenancy. g. Based on the evidence provided, particularly the photographs of the missing window latch and gap in the wood at the bottom of one of the windows and the condition of both these windows, the property manager’s acknowledgement of being notified of this issue and her being unsure as to whether it was repaired, and the tenant’s evidence that this issue was not repaired during her tenancy, which I accept is likely, I find the landlord failed to maintain these windows. Heat pump h. The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain a heat pump at the property. This is dealt with together with the tenant’s claim that the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) by not providing adequate heating at the property during the tenancy, which is addressed below. Based on the evidence, as set out below regarding the claim that the landlord breached the HHS in this regard, I find the landlord failed to maintain the property by not repairing or replacing the heat pump.
By failing to maintain the property, namely by not removing significant green waste, not repairing floor tiles, not repairing window latches and not repairing or replacing the heat pump, 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, 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.
Similarly, in this situation, the landlord allowed a situation to continue for the majority of the tenancy, in relation to the green waste, floor tiles and window latches and for more than 3 months of the tenancy in relation to the heat pump, knowing that not acting would mean the tenant would have to live with these unrepaired issues and not have adequate heating. As such, I find that the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally.
The tenant spoke of the high level of stress she had dealt with, in attempting to get the landlord to repair these issues, to no avail, and referred to several other issues at the property which she had not brought up in her application, that also added to the tenant’s stress from the landlord’s inaction in addressing the property’s condition. She said she remained concerned about her children’s safety at the property, from the green waste, unsafe floor tiles and window latches during the tenancy, and that the lack of a heat pump caused significant health and other issues for her family.
It is in the public interest that tenants can expect a landlord to reasonably repair and maintain issues at the property and keep it safe for the tenant’s family, especially potentially hazardous issues such as significant green waste and lifting floor tiles in high traffic areas of the house. The public interest relating to the lack of heating at the property is dealt with below.
I have dealt with the quantum of exemplary damages for the unlawful act of failure to maintain by the landlord, together with the landlord’s unlawful act of breaching the HHS, and the reasons for dealing with these together, below. Healthy Homes Standards breach - heating
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
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.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant said that, at the start of her tenancy, there was a Magnum log burner fire installed and working at the property, which met the HHS requirements. However, she indicated that this fire failed an annual check-up and was then considered a fire risk. As a result of this, she said the landlord then installed a heat pump in May or June 2022. The tenant reported that the heat pump worked until 10 August 2024. She notified the property manager on 10 August 2024 that the heat pump was not working, then followed up on 12 August 2024, on 30 September 2024 and on 21 October 2024 about whether the heat pump was going to be repaired. She claimed the heat pump was not repaired from 10 August 2024 until after she left the tenancy, just over 3 months later. The tenant said she used a stand heater of her own during this period, but the house was very cold and her family had to stay in one room where her heater was. She said her family experienced respiratory infections during this time and believed it was due to the lack of heating at the property. The tenant had asked the landlord to consider carpeting the property when the heat pump was still working, as she reported the house was so cold, and she found it expensive in power bills to have to run the heat pump constantly.
The property manager acknowledged the tenant contacted her about the heat pump not working firstly on 10 August 2024. The property manager provided a timeline of all the steps she had taken to try and get the heat pump repaired, from 10 August 2024. She said the heat pump was assessed as having a leak and was to be repaired under warranty or replaced. She reported there were difficulties determining who was responsible for this repair or replacement during August 2024. The property manager received the follow up message from the tenant on 30 September 2024 confirming the heat pump had not yet been fixed or was working. She said as she had not heard anything, she had assumed it had been done. The property manager said she then attempted to follow up with the companies involved. She said they were assured it would get repaired. She then received the further follow up message from the tenant on 21 October 2024 and tried to follow up again. The property manager acknowledged the heat pump did not get sorted out until after the end of the tenancy, and also that there was no heating alternative provided by the landlord to the tenant during this period. The property manager did not believe the tenant suffered any serious health issues from the lack of a heat pump whilst the landlord attempted to have it repaired or replaced.
I accept that the property manager made some efforts to start the process of having the heat pump repaired. However, I find that, based on the evidence outlined above, particularly that the heat pump was not working from 10 August 2024 for the rest of the tenancy, which ended on 27 November 2024, a period of 3 months when heating was still required for the tenant’s family, and that no alternative source of heating was provided at the premises by the landlord for this period, and that the landlord did not follow up sufficiently to ensure the repair or replacement was made a priority and was put into place over this period in a timely way, that the landlord breached the requirement to provide sufficient heating at the property as per the Healthy Homes Standards.
As such, I find [The landlord/s] 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, 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.
Similarly, in this situation, the landlord allowed a situation to continue for more than 3 months, resulting in no adequate heating source over this period being provided for the tenant and her family. The property manager attempted to have the heat pump repaired or replaced, but I find the landlord did not follow up sufficiently to ensure this was carried out within a reasonable time or made a priority so that it was fixed in a timely way, nor did they provide any alternative heating for the tenant over this period.
The effect on the tenant and her family, which included young children, was that they only had access to one standing heater of their own and had no other heating source for 3 months, had to all sit in one room with their standing heater and said they experienced respiratory issues during this period. This was at a time of year when heating was still required. The Healthy Homes Standards were brought into place to ensure that tenants did not have to live in substandard conditions, which includes having inadequate heating. As such, the public interest is served by sending a clear message to landlords that providing adequate heating, as per legislated requirements, must be considered a priority and that any repairs to such heating must be addressed in a reasonable timeframe.
I have found the landlord failed to maintain several issues at the property and that the landlord has breached the HHS in relation to heating, all of which I have found amount to unlawful acts.
Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides for a maximum exemplary damages award of $7,200 for breaching section 45(1A) RTA where the landlord failed to meet their obligations regarding maintenance or in relation to the healthy homes standards, which are found to be unlawful acts.
The District Court in Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 considered an appeal by the Ministry (“MBIE”) that the Tribunal erred by holding that only one global order of exemplary damages can be made for breaches with respect to multiple breaches independent of each other, which included breaches of both healthy homes standards and failing to maintain the property.
The Court in Hillis Shearing referred to A v Impression Real Estate [2022] NZDC 23881, where the adjudicator found the respondent failed to comply with its obligations under s. 45, noting three distinct breaches that amounted to unlawful acts under s 45(1A) (failure to maintain and failure to comply with HHS) and determined that the Tribunal can only make one exemplary damages order for a breach of s 45, not three separate orders for heating, draughts and maintenance. The adjudicator there fixed the amount of exemplary damages at 50 per cent of the maximum.
The District Court in Hillis Shearing said, at paragraph [22], that in its view, the comparatively high quantum of the maximum exemplary damages of $7,200 reinforces it is intended to be a global award for all breaches under s 45. The Court said the maximum amount would be meaningless if breaches under s 45 could be punished separately with the maximum multiplied a number of times over. This was also the view taken in Impression Real Estate Limited.
Judge Williams in Hillis Shearing said, at paragraph [23], The legislature taking a global approach to exemplary damages for such breaches is logical, given that, in many cases, there will be significant overlap between the different breaches amounting to unlawful acts pursuant to s 45(1)(a)-(ca) and (1A) of the Act. In such cases, independently analysing and awarding separate damages for the breaches under s 45(1) would be artificial and potentially overly punitive.....Hence, a global approach is preferable.
The Tribunal would only order a maximum level of exemplary damages in the most egregious of cases, particularly where there is a history of breaches being considered in the Tribunal, and the Tribunal’s orders ignored. That is not the case here.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $7,200 for a breach of section 45(1A) RTA which is an unlawful act. In this case I consider an order of just over one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed unlawful acts in failing to maintain the property in several respects and in breaching the HHS relating to heating, none of which were resolved during the tenancy. I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. I cannot see any aggravating or mitigating factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,500.00. Compensation Compensation for stress
The tenant claimed $800.00 compensation for her stress in dealing with all the unrepaired and other issues at the property during her tenancy. She said it had been very distressing with nothing getting sorted out, and that there was an emotional and mental impact on her and her family. During the hearing, the tenant appeared to find it difficult to describe how the situation had affected her in more detail.
I accept it would have been a stressful situation for the tenant in trying to get the repairs sorted out during the tenancy, as it would be for any tenant in a similar situation. However, the tenant did not provide any evidence, such as medical or counselling reports or letters for example, to support her claim about how her own emotional or mental health was affected by this situation. As such, I find there is insufficient evidence to ascertain the level of stress for the tenant in this situation, or about the full impact on the tenant or her family, and so must dismiss this claim. Compensation for lack of amenity – rent rebate
The tenant also claimed compensation for lack of amenity and a rebate on rent she paid, due to maintenance issues not being addressed by the landlord and having to live in that situation. The tenant initially claimed for this lack of amenity rent rebate from 21 November 2023, when she said issues with the property began. She indicated there had been a cockroach infestation that started then and went on for a few months, then there was a leak which caused water damage on the ceiling. The tenant then said during the hearing that her alternative claim for lack of amenity would be from 10 August 2024, when the heat pump broke and the landlord did not provide adequate heating for them for the remainder of the tenancy. The tenant did not provide much evidence about the cockroach infestation and provided a few photographs about the leaks, though she did not claim the leaks or cockroach infestation were part of the landlord’s failure to maintain the property. I find there is insufficient evidence to start any claim for lack of amenity on 21 November 2023, given this.
However, I find there is sufficient evidence to show the tenant was without adequate heating provided by the landlord from 10 August 2024 until the end of the tenancy, which was on 27 November 2024, a period of 15 weeks and 4 days. I find the lack of heating was the main amenity lost by the tenant over this period, despite the other issues that the landlord failed to repair.
The property manager disputed this claim for lack of amenity, indicating they had negotiated a rent reduction for the tenant in August 2024 from $555.00/week to $525.00/week rent, on the grounds of financial hardship. I have considered this factor when assessing quantum for this lack of amenity.
I find a reasonable amount of rent attributable to the lack of heating to be 10% of weekly rent in this situation, given the evidence and the landlord’s rent reduction, as negotiated between the parties. There are 15 weeks of rent from 10 August 2024 to 23 November 2024, and a further 4 days of rent from 24 November 2024 to 27 November 2024. Weekly rent over this period was $525.00 so daily rent was $75.00/day. 10% of $525.00 is $52.50 per week for a rent rebate for 15 weeks, which comes to a sub-total of $787.50 from 10 August 2024 to 23 November 2024. Total rent from 24 November 2024 to 27 November 2024 is $300.00, 10% of which is $30.00. Therefore, I award the tenant a total rent rebate of $817.50 (which is $787.50 plus $30.00) from 10 August 2024 when the heat pump broke, until the end of the tenancy on 27 November 2024. Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy for rent is $1,009.96. The tenant did not dispute this claim.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The tenant agreed to pay $200.00 claimed by the landlord for a post-tenancy cleaning for items she had agreed to cover with the property manager at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, I award the landlord $200.00 for cleaning, by consent of both parties.
The landlord had made a further claim for a second clean and flea treatment but withdrew this claim during the hearing. Gardening
The landlord said the lawns were not maintained properly at the end of the tenancy and provided photographs of the garden in an Outgoing Inspection report dated 28 November 2024. The landlord claimed $100.05 for mowing the lawns and garden work at the end of the tenancy and provided an invoice in this amount. The tenant said she did the lawns about a week before moving out and she thought the lawns had been left reasonably short. From the photographs provided by the landlord of the lawns and gardens at the end of the tenancy, the lawns appear to be in reasonable condition. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the tenant did not leave the lawns and garden in reasonable condition and so dismiss this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant 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.
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.
The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Window replacement a. The landlord said there was a large crack in a lounge window at the end of the tenancy and that this window had to be replaced at a cost of $481.86 (invoice provided). The tenant recalled a crack in the window but said there was no water coming through the crack. She thought her son may have accidentally bumped into this window and confirmed she consented to cover this charge of replacing the window. Therefore, I award the landlord $481.86, as agreed by the tenant, which they have claimed to replace this lounge window glass. b. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The award made to the tenant exceeds the award made to the landlord so the landlord’s claim for refund of the bond is dismissed. As such, I order that the bond, which is held at the Bond Centre on behalf of the tenant pending the determination of any claims against the bond, is refunded in full to the tenant.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s], immediately. Filing fee
As both parties have had success with their respective claims, I do not award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party. Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. As both parties have had success in their respective claims, I order that all parties names, identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091532 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091532 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions