What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5127373 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 5127373?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Blinds: $201.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127373?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11486101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5127373 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 5127373?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Blinds: $201.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127373?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11486101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5127373 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127373 — net $198.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Blinds	$201.25		Repairs: Blinds
Exemplary damages		$400.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$201.25	$400.00
Net award		$198.75
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$198.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $198.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 25 February 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 12 November 2023 and ended on 11 November 2024.
The law relating to the issues before the Tribunal is contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Similarly, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. This is significant in this hearing as the parties may find that a claim is not accepted, not because of any doubts about their voracity, but because they have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case to the standard required.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, exemplary damages and release of the bond.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Tenant claims
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, 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 $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants’ evidence was that the day after the commencement of the tenancy, they wrote to the landlord setting out a number of concerns about the premises. The email is dated 13 November 2023 and states amongst other things that “Some of the lounge’s blinds are inflexed causing visibility of inside for the outsiders even if blinds are fully closed.” The term “ inflexed” means to be bent or curved inwards.
The landlord said that they had checked their residential tenancy computer programme and could not find a copy of the email. The landlord is at something of a disadvantage in that the property manager at the commencement of the tenancy is no longer the property manager. The property manager attending the hearing had only been appointed to deal with this tenancy a few weeks before the tenancy expired.
On 29 October 2024, the tenant repeated his concerns about the blinds in an email to the replacement manager.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the tenant that issue with the blinds had been raised with the landlord. Having done so, the landlord must be allowed a reasonable period during which to investigate and repair the problem if repairs are required. In my view, the landlord has completely overlooked the issue.
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 landlord has failed to repair the issue within a reasonable period. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For an act to be intentional, a landlord must actually be aware of the breach. The courts have confirmed that the term “intentional” means in a sense of “deliberately and with full knowledge.”
The tenant having made the landlord aware of the issue, the landlord’s failure to address it can only be considered intentional.
In considering the level of exemplary damages to award, I am conscious that the issue of the blinds is relatively minor. The tenant suggested that the level of the inflexed blinds was a danger to his young children and was inconvenient when the lounge blinds had to be raised to reach the exterior balcony. I do not consider that the landlord ignored any potential danger. I am satisfied that the landlord’s systems have failed on this occasion leaving the maintenance issue unresolved. Having reviewed all of the evidence provided, I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $400.00 to the tenant, which I accept is at the lower end of the scale. Landlord claim

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.
In this matter, the evidence indicates that the damage to the lounge blinds existed at the commencement of the tenancy and that any further damage to those blinds during the tenancy resulted from the normal use of the already damaged blinds. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the lounge blinds is accordingly dismissed.
I move onto the upstairs bedroom blinds.
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 2019, 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. The landlord is insured for tenant damage and the policy of insurance carries an excess of $250.00.
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 upstairs bedroom blinds were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided a photo of the damage and seeks $201.25 to repair them. The repair consisted of the removal of all the cords and slats, replacing the damaged slat and rehanging the blind. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The bedroom blinds are not referred to specifically in the 2023 correspondence from the tenant.
The amount ordered is proven.
The landlord has not been wholly successful and I make no order regarding the filing fee.
Both parties have achieved a degree of success in this cross application hearing and I consider suppression of all the parties names and addresses to be appropriate.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127373 — net $198.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Blinds	$201.25		Repairs: Blinds
Exemplary damages		$400.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$201.25	$400.00
Net award		$198.75
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$198.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $198.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 25 February 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 12 November 2023 and ended on 11 November 2024.
The law relating to the issues before the Tribunal is contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Similarly, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. This is significant in this hearing as the parties may find that a claim is not accepted, not because of any doubts about their voracity, but because they have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case to the standard required.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, exemplary damages and release of the bond.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Tenant claims
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, 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 $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants’ evidence was that the day after the commencement of the tenancy, they wrote to the landlord setting out a number of concerns about the premises. The email is dated 13 November 2023 and states amongst other things that “Some of the lounge’s blinds are inflexed causing visibility of inside for the outsiders even if blinds are fully closed.” The term “ inflexed” means to be bent or curved inwards.
The landlord said that they had checked their residential tenancy computer programme and could not find a copy of the email. The landlord is at something of a disadvantage in that the property manager at the commencement of the tenancy is no longer the property manager. The property manager attending the hearing had only been appointed to deal with this tenancy a few weeks before the tenancy expired.
On 29 October 2024, the tenant repeated his concerns about the blinds in an email to the replacement manager.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the tenant that issue with the blinds had been raised with the landlord. Having done so, the landlord must be allowed a reasonable period during which to investigate and repair the problem if repairs are required. In my view, the landlord has completely overlooked the issue.
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 landlord has failed to repair the issue within a reasonable period. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For an act to be intentional, a landlord must actually be aware of the breach. The courts have confirmed that the term “intentional” means in a sense of “deliberately and with full knowledge.”
The tenant having made the landlord aware of the issue, the landlord’s failure to address it can only be considered intentional.
In considering the level of exemplary damages to award, I am conscious that the issue of the blinds is relatively minor. The tenant suggested that the level of the inflexed blinds was a danger to his young children and was inconvenient when the lounge blinds had to be raised to reach the exterior balcony. I do not consider that the landlord ignored any potential danger. I am satisfied that the landlord’s systems have failed on this occasion leaving the maintenance issue unresolved. Having reviewed all of the evidence provided, I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $400.00 to the tenant, which I accept is at the lower end of the scale. Landlord claim

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.
In this matter, the evidence indicates that the damage to the lounge blinds existed at the commencement of the tenancy and that any further damage to those blinds during the tenancy resulted from the normal use of the already damaged blinds. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the lounge blinds is accordingly dismissed.
I move onto the upstairs bedroom blinds.
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 2019, 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. The landlord is insured for tenant damage and the policy of insurance carries an excess of $250.00.
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 upstairs bedroom blinds were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided a photo of the damage and seeks $201.25 to repair them. The repair consisted of the removal of all the cords and slats, replacing the damaged slat and rehanging the blind. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The bedroom blinds are not referred to specifically in the 2023 correspondence from the tenant.
The amount ordered is proven.
The landlord has not been wholly successful and I make no order regarding the filing fee.
Both parties have achieved a degree of success in this cross application hearing and I consider suppression of all the parties names and addresses to be appropriate.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127373 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127373 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions