Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5124858 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 5A Waerenga Road, Otaki, Otaki 5512
Decided 12 May 2025 · Published 12 May 2025 · Application 5124858
- Smoke alarms
- Exemplary damages
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Okahu Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $7,197.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- All other clams are dismissed.
Reasons
- The tenant attended the hearing. The tenant is a minor and had a representative. The landlord was properly served and sent reminders but she did not attend the hearing.
- This tenancy started on 22 November 2024 and ended by consent on 16 January 2025. The flat was one of five in an old villa that had been divided into flats. The tenant never moved into her flat because of safety concerns for her and her baby. The tenant filed this application because she believes the Tenancy Tribunal should be aware of the landlord’s breaches. The questions I have to decide include: • Should the tenant get compensation? • Should the tenant get exemplary damages?
Should the tenant get compensation?
- The tenant has claimed a refund of all the rent she paid during the eight week tenancy because she could not move in. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have seen photos and emails which confirm the damage and the timeframe.
- The tenant did not view the flat before she signed the tenancy agreement. If she had she would have realised that the kitchen was different from the photos advertising the flat online. The first day she arrived there was a broken window by the front door meaning the flat was not secure. This was not fixed until late December/early January, after the tenant gave the landlord a 14 day notice. The tenant had difficulty locating an ICP number for the flat. When she went to move in on 7 January 2025 she found that someone had broken into the flat and there was a hole through the kitchen wall into the next door flat big enough for a person the climb through. The tenant reported the break in to the landlord and to the police and gave her 28 days notice to end the tenancy.
- I have not considered any contractual obligations when dealing with a minor because the tenant had support from MSD and a youth coordinator at the start of the tenancy. Also, the two pages used for the tenancy agreement are on the standard form available on the Tenancy Services website.
- It is unfortunate that the house was not secure at the start of the tenancy. The landlord was at fault for taking over a month to fix the glass. However, section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows a tenant to make repairs and claim to cost from the landlord. The tenant could have done this and moved in sooner. It seems most likely to me the problems connecting the power were because of the tenant’s inexperience rather than because of any breach by the landlord. It is unfortunate that the flat was broken into again in January and the landlord did assist the tenant here, allowing her to end the tenancy on short notice. Finally, the tenant could have given notice to move out sooner, which would have mitigated her loss. I find the tenant is not entitled to a reimbursement of the rent she paid during the tenancy. The claim for compensation is dismissed.
Should the tenant get exemplary damages?
The bond
- It is agreed evidence the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. Landlords 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 $1,500.00. See section 19(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- There was a case conference before this hearing which was attended by Donna Miers, the company director for the landlord company. On 4 April 2025 I ordered the landlord to lodge the bond immediately. This was not done. 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) RTA 1986.
- I find the landlord acted intentionally. There have been previous orders against the landlord for failing to lodge the bond. The landlord has not returned the bond to the tenant. The effect for the tenant is that she has had to file an application with the Tribunal and attend a hearing. She is worried that she will not be eligible for any future support from MSD because her bond has not been refunded. She needs that money to find another tenancy for her and her baby. The Bond Centre exists so the bond money is protected. There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they ignore this fundamental obligation.
- I allow $1,300 in exemplary damages. This is at the upper end of the scale because I am aware of other orders for the same breach, in particular 2025 [NZTT] 5099568 where the landlord was ordered to pay $1,200 for the same breach. The tenancy agreement
- The tenant claims that she was only provided with a two page tenancy agreement and this was missing important information about insurance and healthy homes compliance. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have seen documents and emails which prove the claim.
- Under s 13A(1CA) RTA landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS) as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations. Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide the information.
- There is also a claim for a breach of the duty to provide HHS information once requested during the tenancy. Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the HHS within 21 days after receiving the request. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- A 14 day notice requesting a HHS statement and the current level of HHS compliance was served by email on 10 December 2024. The landlord did not provide the HHS information within 21 days. The landlord did not attend the hearing so I am not aware of any reasonable excuse. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- The same considerations apply. I find the landlord is an experienced landlord and therefore it is most likely it knew the legal requirement to provide certain information with the tenancy agreement before the tenancy started. I find the landlord acted intentionally when she only provided two pages of the standard form tenancy agreement. The effect for the tenant was that she did not have the information in front of her to make an informed decision about whether or not to rent the flat, or whether to stay. Tenants should be able to choose the best premises to suit their needs and there is public interest in warm, dry homes.
- I allow $250 in exemplary damages for each breach because I am not aware of any previous orders against the landlord for the same breaches. Maintenance and repairs
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 RTA to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching these obligations 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. I have seen photos and emails which confirm the condition of the flat and the timeframe. It seems most likely to me that the landlord failed to: • provide the flat in a reasonable state of cleanliness • repair the broken glass by the front door within a reasonable timeframe • provide working smoke alarms • provide light switches in a reasonable condition • provide a kitchen in a reasonable condition • provide the windows and doors in a reasonable state of repair because of the gaps and holes seen in the photos • provide the walls inside the flat in a reasonable state of repair because of the gaps and holes visible in the photos • provide the floors in a reasonable state of repair because of the poor condition of the lino and carpets as shown in the photos.
- I have no explanation from Ms Miers. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted intentionally because everything listed was visible at the start of the tenancy. The effect for the tenant was she never moved into her first flat. It is in tenants’ interests that houses are properly cleaned and maintained and there is public interest in landlord’s paying exemplary damages when there are such blatant breaches of the RTA.
- I allow $2,400 which seems a fair amount to me given the short duration of the tenancy. Unlawful entry
- The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice to fix the broken glass by the front door. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 48 (1), (2), (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have seen emails and text messages which confirm the landlord did not give notice the glazier would be given keys and allowed to enter the house. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. It seems most likely to me, give all the other breaches, that the landlord acted intentionally. There was little effect for the tenant because she was not living at the house at the time and the repair had to be done. From the emails it appears the landlord did not try to conceal the entry. I find the award of exemplary damages is not appropriate here. Other orders
- Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is a minor and she is the most successful party.
- The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay exemplary damages at the end of a tenancy.