What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114308 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 5114308?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,299.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11677801-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114308 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 5114308?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,299.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11677801-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16A Grace Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5114308 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5114308 — net $3,499.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 31 January 2025	$6,299.56		Rent arrears as at 31 January 2025
Exemplary damages - rubbish bins		$500.00	Exemplary damages - rubbish bins
Exemplary damages - tree		$500.00	Exemplary damages - tree
Exemplary damages - gate		$1,200.00	Exemplary damages - gate
Exemplary damages - Healthy Homes Statement		$600.00	Exemplary damages - Healthy Homes Statement
Total award	$6,299.56	$2,800.00
Net award	$3,499.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,499.56

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,499.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately, as calculated in the table below. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.44 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Jiayin Hong and Troy Dykes immediately, as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

This order ought to be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s previous order dated 24 January 2025. The hearing on that day was adjourned to 3 April 2025 and both parties attended the hearing on that day. Ms Hong advised that she had the authority to represent Mr Dykes at the videoconference hearing.
In the order dated 24 January 2025 I set aside an agreement between the parties relating to early termination of a fixed term agreement in return for the tenants’ withdrawal of their claim in the Tenancy Tribunal.
I shall address each of the parties’ claims in turn. Landlord’s claim Rent arrears
The landlord’s only monetary claim was for rent arrears to 31 January 2025. It was accepted evidence that as at that date $6,299.56 was owing in rent arrears. Suppression
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name.
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
I am allowing suppression of the landlord’s name for two reasons: (a) The landlord was wholly successful in their claim against the tenant; and (b) I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant has made extensive negative comments on social media about the premises, the property management company and the owner and that this has had a significant deleterious effect on the owner and the property management company. I do not consider that it is in the public interest to further name the landlord in an order such as this one. The tenants’ claim Reduction of fixed term tenancy
Section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that on application by a party to a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy was not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term was reduced.
Where the Tribunal makes such an order, the Tribunal may also order that the applicant pay to the other party reasonable compensation for any loss or damage which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
The tenants wish to reduce their fixed term tenancy, which was due to expire on 14 February 2025, on the grounds that the condition of the premises was unforeseen. The tenants vacated the tenancy on 17 January 2025.
I am dismissing this part of the tenants’ claim because there was no unforeseen change in the applicants’ circumstances, as required by s66.
The appropriate course of action for the tenants regarding the condition of the property is to make claims to the Tenancy Tribunal under s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which is what they have done. Section 45 Breaches of s45(1)(a) and (b)
Jiayin Hong and Troy Dykes claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a) and (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45(1)(a) and (b) the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants make a claim under s45(1)(a) in relation to rubbish bins that were left full at the start of their tenancy.
There was no dispute that the rubbish bins were full at the start of the tenancy. They should not have been and I consider that the fact that they were full was a breach of s45(1)(a) and therefore an unlawful act as provided by s45(1A).
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 accept that the landlord intentionally left the bins full. They were relying on the next scheduled pickup of the bins on 19 February 2024, 2 days after the tenancy started. However the obligation is to provide premises that are reasonably clean, which includes being free from rubbish. That does not mean that premises may be provided reasonably clean two days after a tenancy has started.
The effect on the tenant was that they were obliged to dump rubbish themselves because the recycling bin was not picked up because it was full of material that was not recyclable.
In coming to an award of exemplary damages of $500.00 for this breach I have also taken into account that the red rubbish bin was cleared in 2 days and that the green bins were not included in the tenancy because it was a private contract belonging to the owner.
Further to this, there is public interest in landlords abiding by all their obligations under the Residential Tenancies act 1986. No tenants should be in a position where they are having to deal with the previous occupants’ rubbish.
The tenants also claim that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) by failing to trim a spiky tree in a timely way and failing to repair the gate in a timely way.
In terms of the tree, it is the landlord’s obligation to keep the tree trimmed.
On 4 April 2024 the tenant notified the landlord that the neighbour threw tree trimmings on to their property, apparently because of an ongoing dispute regarding the tree. At that time the tenant advised the landlord that she would deal with the branches.
On 12 August 2024 the tenant emailed the landlord to say that they no longer wished to deal with the neighbour throwing branches over and advised that the landlord ought to deal with the issue. By return email the landlord said that it was only a few small branches and that it wasn’t a big issue.
On 27 September 2024, during a routine inspection, the tenant advised that the tree had fallen down on 18 August 2024. The tree was trimmed at the beginning of October 2024.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) by failing to trim the tree in a timely way. I say this because as soon as the landlord was aware that there was an ongoing dispute with the neighbour regarding the tree, the matter should have been dealt with. This is especially because the tree has thorns, and not only is it a nuisance for the neighbour, but the growth of the tree prevents proper use of the pathway.
For this breach I am awarding $500.00 in exemplary damages. In coming to this amount I have taken into account that the landlord was aware that the tree was a nuisance, they were aware of what type of tree it was, and yet did not arrange to have the tree trimmed until nearly 8 months after the tenancy started.
With regard to the gate, the tenant first advised the landlord that the gate was faulty on 1 March 2024, almost two weeks in to the tenancy. On 4 March 2024, having received no response from the property manager, the tenant contacted the owner of the property who instructed them on how to fix the gate.
On 3 April 2024 the tenant advised the property manager that the instructions from the owner was not a long term solution to the gate problem and on 30 June 2024 the tenant advised another property manager that the gate screws kept coming off.
On 2 July 2024 a handyman tightened the gate screws. While the tenant advised that they still had issues with the gate she stated that she no longer bothered to advise the landlord of this because she felt that she was getting an inadequate response.
On 18 December 2024 the gate fell of and was re-attached by the handyman on 20 December 2024.
On 31 December 2024 the gate fell off again but by this time the tenant had already filed a claim in the Tenancy Tribunal and she sent the documentation about the gate falling off to the Tribunal.
I accept the evidence showing that the owner/landlord was well aware of the gate issue prior to the tenants moving in. The owner had used rocks to keep the gate in place.
Having known about the issue, the landlord ought to have undertaken a proper fix of the gate, rather than have a handyman just tighten the screws..
In making an award of $1,000.00 for this breach of s45(1)(b) I have taken into account the deliberate nature of the breach, and the apparent disinterest in having the issue properly investigated and remedied. I have also taken into account the fact that the tenants were unable to rely on the gate functioning at all, having to request neighbours’ help, and eventually the gate falling over, thereby compromising the “fully fenced” nature of the property, as advertised.
Again, landlords are obliged to abide by all their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Section 45(1)(bb)
The tenants say that the landlords have breached s45(1)(bb) by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), particularly in relation to heating and draughts.
As referred to in my previous order of 24 January 2025, the compliance date for HHS for private rentals is 1 July 2025.
For this reason I am dismissing this part of the tenants’ claim. Section 13(1CA)
Section 13 (1CA) provides that the 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.
Section 1F provides that a failure to do so is an unlawful act. This unlawful act attracts an award of exemplary damages of up to $750.00.
It was accepted evidence that no such statement was provided with the tenancy agreement.
In making an award of exemplary damages for this breach I must first determine whether the breach was intentional.
The landlord says that the breach was done in error. However, I am imputing intention onto the landlord because the landlord, as a company in the business of property management, would have known that it ought to have been supplied with the tenancy agreement. It is not a mistake made by a person unaccustomed to the law relating to tenancies.
In situations such as these, where negligence is the causative factor, the Tribunal has imputed intention.
In making an award of $600.00 in exemplary damages for this breach, I have accepted the tenant’s evidence that had she known that the heating was non- compliant, she either would not have taken the tenancy or negotiated a lower rent.
I have also taken into account the significant public interest in landlords providing all information pertinent to a tenancy and required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, in a timely way so that tenants and prospective tenants can make informed decisions regarding the tenancy. Section 48
This claim is outlined in my previous order and relates to the tenants claim that the landlord allowed a prospective tenant to view the property without the required notice.
I am dismissing this part of the tenants’ claim because I accept that the landlord was unaware that a person was viewing the property and they had not given anyone permission to do so.
The tenants have not been able to prove otherwise. Filing fees
Each party is to bear their own cost of filing their applications. This is because the landlord was wholly successful in their claim against the tenants and the tenants were substantially successful in their claim against the landlord. C ter Haar 03 April 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5114308 — net $3,499.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 31 January 2025	$6,299.56		Rent arrears as at 31 January 2025
Exemplary damages - rubbish bins		$500.00	Exemplary damages - rubbish bins
Exemplary damages - tree		$500.00	Exemplary damages - tree
Exemplary damages - gate		$1,200.00	Exemplary damages - gate
Exemplary damages - Healthy Homes Statement		$600.00	Exemplary damages - Healthy Homes Statement
Total award	$6,299.56	$2,800.00
Net award	$3,499.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,499.56

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,499.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately, as calculated in the table below. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.44 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Jiayin Hong and Troy Dykes immediately, as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

This order ought to be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s previous order dated 24 January 2025. The hearing on that day was adjourned to 3 April 2025 and both parties attended the hearing on that day. Ms Hong advised that she had the authority to represent Mr Dykes at the videoconference hearing.
In the order dated 24 January 2025 I set aside an agreement between the parties relating to early termination of a fixed term agreement in return for the tenants’ withdrawal of their claim in the Tenancy Tribunal.
I shall address each of the parties’ claims in turn. Landlord’s claim Rent arrears
The landlord’s only monetary claim was for rent arrears to 31 January 2025. It was accepted evidence that as at that date $6,299.56 was owing in rent arrears. Suppression
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name.
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
I am allowing suppression of the landlord’s name for two reasons: (a) The landlord was wholly successful in their claim against the tenant; and (b) I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant has made extensive negative comments on social media about the premises, the property management company and the owner and that this has had a significant deleterious effect on the owner and the property management company. I do not consider that it is in the public interest to further name the landlord in an order such as this one. The tenants’ claim Reduction of fixed term tenancy
Section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that on application by a party to a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy was not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term was reduced.
Where the Tribunal makes such an order, the Tribunal may also order that the applicant pay to the other party reasonable compensation for any loss or damage which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
The tenants wish to reduce their fixed term tenancy, which was due to expire on 14 February 2025, on the grounds that the condition of the premises was unforeseen. The tenants vacated the tenancy on 17 January 2025.
I am dismissing this part of the tenants’ claim because there was no unforeseen change in the applicants’ circumstances, as required by s66.
The appropriate course of action for the tenants regarding the condition of the property is to make claims to the Tenancy Tribunal under s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which is what they have done. Section 45 Breaches of s45(1)(a) and (b)
Jiayin Hong and Troy Dykes claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a) and (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45(1)(a) and (b) the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants make a claim under s45(1)(a) in relation to rubbish bins that were left full at the start of their tenancy.
There was no dispute that the rubbish bins were full at the start of the tenancy. They should not have been and I consider that the fact that they were full was a breach of s45(1)(a) and therefore an unlawful act as provided by s45(1A).
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 accept that the landlord intentionally left the bins full. They were relying on the next scheduled pickup of the bins on 19 February 2024, 2 days after the tenancy started. However the obligation is to provide premises that are reasonably clean, which includes being free from rubbish. That does not mean that premises may be provided reasonably clean two days after a tenancy has started.
The effect on the tenant was that they were obliged to dump rubbish themselves because the recycling bin was not picked up because it was full of material that was not recyclable.
In coming to an award of exemplary damages of $500.00 for this breach I have also taken into account that the red rubbish bin was cleared in 2 days and that the green bins were not included in the tenancy because it was a private contract belonging to the owner.
Further to this, there is public interest in landlords abiding by all their obligations under the Residential Tenancies act 1986. No tenants should be in a position where they are having to deal with the previous occupants’ rubbish.
The tenants also claim that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) by failing to trim a spiky tree in a timely way and failing to repair the gate in a timely way.
In terms of the tree, it is the landlord’s obligation to keep the tree trimmed.
On 4 April 2024 the tenant notified the landlord that the neighbour threw tree trimmings on to their property, apparently because of an ongoing dispute regarding the tree. At that time the tenant advised the landlord that she would deal with the branches.
On 12 August 2024 the tenant emailed the landlord to say that they no longer wished to deal with the neighbour throwing branches over and advised that the landlord ought to deal with the issue. By return email the landlord said that it was only a few small branches and that it wasn’t a big issue.
On 27 September 2024, during a routine inspection, the tenant advised that the tree had fallen down on 18 August 2024. The tree was trimmed at the beginning of October 2024.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) by failing to trim the tree in a timely way. I say this because as soon as the landlord was aware that there was an ongoing dispute with the neighbour regarding the tree, the matter should have been dealt with. This is especially because the tree has thorns, and not only is it a nuisance for the neighbour, but the growth of the tree prevents proper use of the pathway.
For this breach I am awarding $500.00 in exemplary damages. In coming to this amount I have taken into account that the landlord was aware that the tree was a nuisance, they were aware of what type of tree it was, and yet did not arrange to have the tree trimmed until nearly 8 months after the tenancy started.
With regard to the gate, the tenant first advised the landlord that the gate was faulty on 1 March 2024, almost two weeks in to the tenancy. On 4 March 2024, having received no response from the property manager, the tenant contacted the owner of the property who instructed them on how to fix the gate.
On 3 April 2024 the tenant advised the property manager that the instructions from the owner was not a long term solution to the gate problem and on 30 June 2024 the tenant advised another property manager that the gate screws kept coming off.
On 2 July 2024 a handyman tightened the gate screws. While the tenant advised that they still had issues with the gate she stated that she no longer bothered to advise the landlord of this because she felt that she was getting an inadequate response.
On 18 December 2024 the gate fell of and was re-attached by the handyman on 20 December 2024.
On 31 December 2024 the gate fell off again but by this time the tenant had already filed a claim in the Tenancy Tribunal and she sent the documentation about the gate falling off to the Tribunal.
I accept the evidence showing that the owner/landlord was well aware of the gate issue prior to the tenants moving in. The owner had used rocks to keep the gate in place.
Having known about the issue, the landlord ought to have undertaken a proper fix of the gate, rather than have a handyman just tighten the screws..
In making an award of $1,000.00 for this breach of s45(1)(b) I have taken into account the deliberate nature of the breach, and the apparent disinterest in having the issue properly investigated and remedied. I have also taken into account the fact that the tenants were unable to rely on the gate functioning at all, having to request neighbours’ help, and eventually the gate falling over, thereby compromising the “fully fenced” nature of the property, as advertised.
Again, landlords are obliged to abide by all their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Section 45(1)(bb)
The tenants say that the landlords have breached s45(1)(bb) by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), particularly in relation to heating and draughts.
As referred to in my previous order of 24 January 2025, the compliance date for HHS for private rentals is 1 July 2025.
For this reason I am dismissing this part of the tenants’ claim. Section 13(1CA)
Section 13 (1CA) provides that the 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.
Section 1F provides that a failure to do so is an unlawful act. This unlawful act attracts an award of exemplary damages of up to $750.00.
It was accepted evidence that no such statement was provided with the tenancy agreement.
In making an award of exemplary damages for this breach I must first determine whether the breach was intentional.
The landlord says that the breach was done in error. However, I am imputing intention onto the landlord because the landlord, as a company in the business of property management, would have known that it ought to have been supplied with the tenancy agreement. It is not a mistake made by a person unaccustomed to the law relating to tenancies.
In situations such as these, where negligence is the causative factor, the Tribunal has imputed intention.
In making an award of $600.00 in exemplary damages for this breach, I have accepted the tenant’s evidence that had she known that the heating was non- compliant, she either would not have taken the tenancy or negotiated a lower rent.
I have also taken into account the significant public interest in landlords providing all information pertinent to a tenancy and required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, in a timely way so that tenants and prospective tenants can make informed decisions regarding the tenancy. Section 48
This claim is outlined in my previous order and relates to the tenants claim that the landlord allowed a prospective tenant to view the property without the required notice.
I am dismissing this part of the tenants’ claim because I accept that the landlord was unaware that a person was viewing the property and they had not given anyone permission to do so.
The tenants have not been able to prove otherwise. Filing fees
Each party is to bear their own cost of filing their applications. This is because the landlord was wholly successful in their claim against the tenants and the tenants were substantially successful in their claim against the landlord. C ter Haar 03 April 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114308 — Rent arrears at 16A Grace Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114308 — Rent arrears at 16A Grace Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions