What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5111590 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 5111590?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $680.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5111590?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5111590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11538021-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5111590 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 5111590?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $680.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5111590?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5111590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11538021-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19A Cave Road, Houghton Bay, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5111590 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5111590 — net $847.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears from 22 January 2020 - 13 August 2024	$680.00		Rent arrears from 22 January 2020 - 13 August 2024
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged		$500.00	bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: no underfloor insulation		$1,000.00	no underfloor insulation
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$680.00	$1,527.00
Net award		$847.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$847.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Jeremey Thorpe must pay [The tenant/s] $847.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has filed a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages because of maintenance breaches, breaches relating to the Healthy Homes Standards, and breach of quiet enjoyment. The questions I have to decide include: • How much is owed for rent? • Did the landlord know about the need for maintenance and repairs? • Should the landlord have insulated the house? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the bond have been lodged?

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy started on 2 November 2016. The rent was $340 throughout the tenancy. The landlord has claimed rent to 13 August 2024 and the tenant agreed to pay rent to that date.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. According to his records the tenant owed $4,230 at the end of the tenancy.
I note from the rent summary that the tenant owed more than $11,000 in late 2019. At that stage there were two tenants living in the house and one tenant was not always paying rent. There is evidence the parties discussed the arrears early in 2020 and the tenant who lived in the premises until 2024 paid $2,000 in August 2020 and agreed to pay an extra $20 a week. The rent record shows he missed two payments of $340 in the four years that followed, and made around 206 additional payments of $20.
As discussed at the hearing, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that a party mitigate their loss, which means in short that that they must take actions to limit any loss from a breach by the other party. When rent arrears occur, a reasonable landlord will mitigate that loss by writing 14 day notices and applying to the Tenancy Tribunal for appropriate orders.
In this case the landlord did not tell the tenants about the arrears until January 2020. By that time the tenants had been in arrears for almost three years. In the circumstances, I consider the landlord did not mitigate his loss. This is because he allowed the arrears to continue to accrue instead of ending the tenancy and reletting the premises, thereby preventing further loss.
Mitigation by a landlord was considered recently in the District Court case of Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726. The Court found that the test of what is required for mitigation was whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate loss, and whether the landlord acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
I find the landlord did not act reasonably when he ignored the rent arrears. Given the efforts made by the tenant to pay the weekly rent and the additional $20 I find the landlord acted reasonably in allowing the tenancy to continue.
As to the circumstances of the case, it seems most likely to me the rent arrears would have been addressed much sooner and in full had the tenant been made aware of the problem. From 22 January 2020 until the end of the tenancy the tenant reduced the arrears from $10,870 to $4,230 – a repayment of $6,640. This is a little over 60% of the total arrears. I find this was a reasonable contribution by the tenant. Consequently, I find the landlord cannot claim the rent arrears from the start of the tenancy until 22 January 2020. This part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord know about the need for maintenance and repairs?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA, which sets out that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. He has provided me with good photos of the leak in the kitchen and photos showing windows in need of maintenance, a roof with holes in it, and mould inside the house. In reply the landlord said he was not aware of the need to repair. The tenant could not provide me with any texts, messages, or emails to prove he notified the landlord. I am not persuaded by the letters he provided from a friend and the neighbour either. The tenant does not have the better evidence here and this claim is dismissed. The associated claim for compensation for stress and damage to belongings is also dismissed.

Should the landlord have insulated the house?

Because this tenancy started in 2016 the landlord has until 1 July 2025 to comply with the Heathy Homes Standards (HHS). The claims relating to heating and moisture ingress are dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligation to insulate. It is agreed evidence there is no insulation. From 1 July 2019, all residential premises had to be insulated to a minimum standard. See section 45(1)(bb) RTA Part 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulation 2016. This is the tenant’s claim to prove, but the landlord is required to prove that an exemption applies.
The premises has a skillion roof, which is a recognised exemption for ceiling insulation because there is no access until the roof is replaced. It seems most likely to me there was no breach here.
The law requires underfloor insulation. This applies to this premises unless there is an exemption. There is a garage under the premises which was not part of the tenancy. The garage has a gibbed ceiling and a concrete pad. The landlord submitted that he was not required to insulate under the floor because the house is being demolished and because there is no space. I also note the exemption where there is a habitable space below the floor that would otherwise have to be insulated, such as another apartment.
The exemption relating to demolition does not apply to this tenancy because this exemption only applies for 12 months and must be declared in the tenancy agreement. The garage is not a habitable space, so that exemption does not apply here. I have not been provided with any information from an installer that the gib on the garage ceiling means the installation of underfloor insulation is not possible. I find the landlord has not proved the exemptions apply.
Breaching the obligation to insulate is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 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 45(1A) and Schedule 1A and section 109(3) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. He said he was aware of the need to comply with the HHS. He knew about the exemptions. He should have asked an insulation installer to check the garage and write a written statement if there was a genuine reason insulation could not be installed. The tenant was cold and the house had black mould growing inside. It is tenants’ interests that landlords provide warm, dry homes and insulation helps achieve that. There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damage when there is a breach of the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1,000. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord and there is no evidence the tenant raised this as a concern during the tenancy.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims landlord breached his quiet enjoyment. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
This claim relates to the garage being rented to a man with a loud car that made the house vibrate when the engine started. This is the tenants claim to prove. The landlord said he addressed this concern at the time. There is no evidence the landlord knew this was an ongoing concern for the tenant. This claim is dismissed.

Should the bond have been lodged?

It is agreed evidence a bond was paid and not lodged. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord knew he was required to lodge the bond. This was not done. I find he committed an unlawful act. I find I can award exemplary damages because a bond can be lodged right up to the end of the tenancy. This means there was still a breach 12 months before the tenant’s cross application was filed. The same considerations apply for exemplary damages.
The landlord knew he should have lodged the bond. He acted intentionally. The affect for the tenant was that he could not even recall how much had been paid as bond at the start of the tenancy, and he was not able to check. Tenants’ money should be held by an independent third party so it is kept safe and is available if anything has to paid at the end of the tenancy. There is public interest in a penalty when this basic responsibility is ignored. I allow $500, which is the usual amount among adjudicators for a first breach. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5111590 — net $847.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears from 22 January 2020 - 13 August 2024	$680.00		Rent arrears from 22 January 2020 - 13 August 2024
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged		$500.00	bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: no underfloor insulation		$1,000.00	no underfloor insulation
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$680.00	$1,527.00
Net award		$847.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$847.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Jeremey Thorpe must pay [The tenant/s] $847.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has filed a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages because of maintenance breaches, breaches relating to the Healthy Homes Standards, and breach of quiet enjoyment. The questions I have to decide include: • How much is owed for rent? • Did the landlord know about the need for maintenance and repairs? • Should the landlord have insulated the house? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the bond have been lodged?

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy started on 2 November 2016. The rent was $340 throughout the tenancy. The landlord has claimed rent to 13 August 2024 and the tenant agreed to pay rent to that date.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. According to his records the tenant owed $4,230 at the end of the tenancy.
I note from the rent summary that the tenant owed more than $11,000 in late 2019. At that stage there were two tenants living in the house and one tenant was not always paying rent. There is evidence the parties discussed the arrears early in 2020 and the tenant who lived in the premises until 2024 paid $2,000 in August 2020 and agreed to pay an extra $20 a week. The rent record shows he missed two payments of $340 in the four years that followed, and made around 206 additional payments of $20.
As discussed at the hearing, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that a party mitigate their loss, which means in short that that they must take actions to limit any loss from a breach by the other party. When rent arrears occur, a reasonable landlord will mitigate that loss by writing 14 day notices and applying to the Tenancy Tribunal for appropriate orders.
In this case the landlord did not tell the tenants about the arrears until January 2020. By that time the tenants had been in arrears for almost three years. In the circumstances, I consider the landlord did not mitigate his loss. This is because he allowed the arrears to continue to accrue instead of ending the tenancy and reletting the premises, thereby preventing further loss.
Mitigation by a landlord was considered recently in the District Court case of Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726. The Court found that the test of what is required for mitigation was whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate loss, and whether the landlord acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
I find the landlord did not act reasonably when he ignored the rent arrears. Given the efforts made by the tenant to pay the weekly rent and the additional $20 I find the landlord acted reasonably in allowing the tenancy to continue.
As to the circumstances of the case, it seems most likely to me the rent arrears would have been addressed much sooner and in full had the tenant been made aware of the problem. From 22 January 2020 until the end of the tenancy the tenant reduced the arrears from $10,870 to $4,230 – a repayment of $6,640. This is a little over 60% of the total arrears. I find this was a reasonable contribution by the tenant. Consequently, I find the landlord cannot claim the rent arrears from the start of the tenancy until 22 January 2020. This part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord know about the need for maintenance and repairs?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA, which sets out that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. He has provided me with good photos of the leak in the kitchen and photos showing windows in need of maintenance, a roof with holes in it, and mould inside the house. In reply the landlord said he was not aware of the need to repair. The tenant could not provide me with any texts, messages, or emails to prove he notified the landlord. I am not persuaded by the letters he provided from a friend and the neighbour either. The tenant does not have the better evidence here and this claim is dismissed. The associated claim for compensation for stress and damage to belongings is also dismissed.

Should the landlord have insulated the house?

Because this tenancy started in 2016 the landlord has until 1 July 2025 to comply with the Heathy Homes Standards (HHS). The claims relating to heating and moisture ingress are dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the obligation to insulate. It is agreed evidence there is no insulation. From 1 July 2019, all residential premises had to be insulated to a minimum standard. See section 45(1)(bb) RTA Part 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulation 2016. This is the tenant’s claim to prove, but the landlord is required to prove that an exemption applies.
The premises has a skillion roof, which is a recognised exemption for ceiling insulation because there is no access until the roof is replaced. It seems most likely to me there was no breach here.
The law requires underfloor insulation. This applies to this premises unless there is an exemption. There is a garage under the premises which was not part of the tenancy. The garage has a gibbed ceiling and a concrete pad. The landlord submitted that he was not required to insulate under the floor because the house is being demolished and because there is no space. I also note the exemption where there is a habitable space below the floor that would otherwise have to be insulated, such as another apartment.
The exemption relating to demolition does not apply to this tenancy because this exemption only applies for 12 months and must be declared in the tenancy agreement. The garage is not a habitable space, so that exemption does not apply here. I have not been provided with any information from an installer that the gib on the garage ceiling means the installation of underfloor insulation is not possible. I find the landlord has not proved the exemptions apply.
Breaching the obligation to insulate is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 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 45(1A) and Schedule 1A and section 109(3) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. He said he was aware of the need to comply with the HHS. He knew about the exemptions. He should have asked an insulation installer to check the garage and write a written statement if there was a genuine reason insulation could not be installed. The tenant was cold and the house had black mould growing inside. It is tenants’ interests that landlords provide warm, dry homes and insulation helps achieve that. There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damage when there is a breach of the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1,000. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord and there is no evidence the tenant raised this as a concern during the tenancy.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims landlord breached his quiet enjoyment. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
This claim relates to the garage being rented to a man with a loud car that made the house vibrate when the engine started. This is the tenants claim to prove. The landlord said he addressed this concern at the time. There is no evidence the landlord knew this was an ongoing concern for the tenant. This claim is dismissed.

Should the bond have been lodged?

It is agreed evidence a bond was paid and not lodged. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord knew he was required to lodge the bond. This was not done. I find he committed an unlawful act. I find I can award exemplary damages because a bond can be lodged right up to the end of the tenancy. This means there was still a breach 12 months before the tenant’s cross application was filed. The same considerations apply for exemplary damages.
The landlord knew he should have lodged the bond. He acted intentionally. The affect for the tenant was that he could not even recall how much had been paid as bond at the start of the tenancy, and he was not able to check. Tenants’ money should be held by an independent third party so it is kept safe and is available if anything has to paid at the end of the tenancy. There is public interest in a penalty when this basic responsibility is ignored. I allow $500, which is the usual amount among adjudicators for a first breach. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5111590 — Exemplary damages at 19A Cave Road, Houghton Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5111590 — Exemplary damages at 19A Cave Road, Houghton Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the landlord know about the need for maintenance and repairs?

Should the landlord have insulated the house?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the bond have been lodged?

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 landlord know about the need for maintenance and repairs?

Should the landlord have insulated the house?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the bond have been lodged?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions