What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5136529 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 5136529?

Compensation: Electricity Overcharge: $260.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136529?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11622885-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5136529 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 5136529?

Compensation: Electricity Overcharge: $260.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136529?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11622885-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 Mulroy Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5136529 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136529 — net $787.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: electricity overcharge	$260.00	electricity overcharge
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$500.00	fail to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$787.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$787.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlords also prefer that their identifying details be suppressed but having found claims by the tenants proved, the grounds for suppression of the landlords’ details are not satisfied (see s.95A RTA).
Min Zhou and Derek Yu must pay

Reasons

The tenants were represented by [The tenant/s].
The landlords were represented by Ms Zhao with support and advocacy from Mr Cai.
The agreement names the landlord as Derek Yu, Ms Zhao’s son. Ms Zhao says that Mr Yu is unwell and unable to attend the hearing and had made a request for representation. There is no record of that request on the file.
Ms Zhao is the owner of the property and says that the agreement was signed by Mr Yu on her behalf. [The tenant/s] confirms that although any issues the tenants had were initially raised with Mr Yu, they would then deal with Ms Zhao to address them. The parties attending today confirm that it would be appropriate that Ms Zhou be added as a landlord party. There is no apparent prejudice to the tenants from hearing their claims in Mr Yu’s absence. Jurisdiction
The address for these premises is 21 Mulroy Place, Pinehill. The agreement gives the address for Mr Yu as landlord, also as 21 Mulroy Place, Pinehill.
That being so the issue arises as to whether this tenancy might be excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act by s.5(1)(n), which provides that the RTA does not apply: “...where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
The question is what “premises” the agreement relates to.
The property was built in 2013. It was built with a self-contained 2 bedroom “granny flat” on the ground floor. The other part of the property comprises a 4 bedroom home, mostly upstairs but with a downstairs living space that adjoins the flat.
The flat has a separate entrance and separate facilities for cooking, washing and laundry. The tenants’ evidence is that the door between the flat and the rest of the house can only be opened from the main house. They say that there was no shared use of any facilities or interior spaces. There is no separate supply of water or power to the flat but there is a check meter to separately record the flat’s electricity use which the tenants were to pay for. Gas and water were included in the rent.
The landlord used a standard form residential tenancy agreement to record the agreement.
Ms Zhou says that her son made an error by using the wrong type of agreement and should have used a flat sharing agreement. With respect, I disagree. The evidence satisfies me that in substance, the landlords were renting the flat to the tenants to be used as a separate self-contained place of residence which they exclusively occupied, while the landlords’ family exclusively occupied the remainder of the property as their residence. The occasional common use of outdoor areas does not alter that fundamental arrangement.
I find that the tenancy was not excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(n). The tenancy was one to which the RTA applied and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this dispute. Tenants’ Claims Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants paid the landlord a bond of $2,040.00. There is no dispute that it was not lodged with the Bond Centre. It was refunded to the tenants when the tenancy ended.
By not lodging the tenants’ bond, the landlords 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 landlords’ failure to lodge the bond was intentional but arose from a mistaken belief that they were not required to do so. That error led to other shortcomings in how the landlords documented the parties’ agreement and to a failure to include required information in it. It is however an error that should not have been made.
I take into account that the error was genuine and that the landlords refunded the tenants’ bond. I also take into account that there is a public interest in landlords taking reasonable steps to ensure that they are aware of their obligations and act lawfully when renting out residential premises.
Balancing those considerations, I find that a modest award of exemplary damages would be just.

Are these unlawful premises?

Section 78A RTA authorises the Tribunal to consider whether premises are unlawful residential premises, whether an application is made for that purpose or not.
The landlords say that the premises were built, with the 2 bedroom flat consented. The tenants say that apart from some difficulties they had managing mould the premises were quite habitable and suitable for residential use.
The evidence does not support a finding that the premises, “....cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation)” in terms of s.78A(2) RTA. I note however that the landlords should ensure that the flat, as well as being built to code and consented, is able to be rented out to a separate household, rather than just used ancillary to the main dwelling. Electricity
The evidence shows that despite there being a check meter on the flat, Mr Yu refused to provide the tenants with the meter readings when charging them for electricity use. The tenants claim that they have been overcharged.
The landlords have provided the supplier invoices for the period from June 2024 to January 2025. Even though there were 2 tenants living in the flat and up to 4 people living in the rest of the property, some months almost all of the electricity charges for the whole property were charged to the tenants.
The invoices show an average monthly electricity cost of $133.50 for the whole of the property. As it is the landlords’ responsibility to ensure that only metered electricity use is recovered, it is appropriate that the Tribunal be conservative in estimating the tenants’ liability. That, and given that there were up to 4 people living in the rest of the property, leads me to assess $40.00 per month as the tenants’ share of the electricity charges - $480.00 over the 12 months of the tenancy. The tenants have proved having paid $940.00 for electricity, the landlords have already refunded $200.00. The tenants should be refunded a further $260.00 ($940.00 paid - $480.00 payable - $200.00 already refunded). Dehumidifier
The tenants’ evidence is that after moving in they found a problem with the curtains being mouldy which they raised with the landlord. They arranged for the curtains to be washed and treated and bought a dehumidifier.
The landlords refunded the tenants for the cost of the curtain treatments. The tenants claim reimbursement for the cost of the dehumidifier - $729.00.
The evidence does not prove that the mould issues or the tenants’ decision to buy a dehumidifier were caused by a breach of the landlords’ obligations.
The tenant’s have retained the dehumidifier and although their evidence is that they do not need to use it in their current accommodation, very many households choose to operate dehumidifiers and the tenants may well benefit from having the dehumidifier available for their future use.
For those reasons, that claim is declined. Breach of right to quiet enjoyment/ harassment
The tenants say that on 6 January 2025 Ms Zhou abused and insulted [The tenant/s] saying, “This had a serious impact on my heart. It also had an irreversible effect on my state of depression......”
In terms of s.38 (2) RTA, “The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” Breach of that provision in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is essentially contractual. Parties’ conduct is relevant, where provided by the RTA, in the context of their landlord/ tenant relationship. Even if Ms Zhou did say things she ought not have, in the context of a dispute over end of tenancy issues, that did not amount to an interference with the tenants’ use of the premises, because by then the tenancy had ended.
That claim is dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136529 — net $787.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: electricity overcharge	$260.00	electricity overcharge
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$500.00	fail to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$787.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$787.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlords also prefer that their identifying details be suppressed but having found claims by the tenants proved, the grounds for suppression of the landlords’ details are not satisfied (see s.95A RTA).
Min Zhou and Derek Yu must pay

Reasons

The tenants were represented by [The tenant/s].
The landlords were represented by Ms Zhao with support and advocacy from Mr Cai.
The agreement names the landlord as Derek Yu, Ms Zhao’s son. Ms Zhao says that Mr Yu is unwell and unable to attend the hearing and had made a request for representation. There is no record of that request on the file.
Ms Zhao is the owner of the property and says that the agreement was signed by Mr Yu on her behalf. [The tenant/s] confirms that although any issues the tenants had were initially raised with Mr Yu, they would then deal with Ms Zhao to address them. The parties attending today confirm that it would be appropriate that Ms Zhou be added as a landlord party. There is no apparent prejudice to the tenants from hearing their claims in Mr Yu’s absence. Jurisdiction
The address for these premises is 21 Mulroy Place, Pinehill. The agreement gives the address for Mr Yu as landlord, also as 21 Mulroy Place, Pinehill.
That being so the issue arises as to whether this tenancy might be excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act by s.5(1)(n), which provides that the RTA does not apply: “...where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
The question is what “premises” the agreement relates to.
The property was built in 2013. It was built with a self-contained 2 bedroom “granny flat” on the ground floor. The other part of the property comprises a 4 bedroom home, mostly upstairs but with a downstairs living space that adjoins the flat.
The flat has a separate entrance and separate facilities for cooking, washing and laundry. The tenants’ evidence is that the door between the flat and the rest of the house can only be opened from the main house. They say that there was no shared use of any facilities or interior spaces. There is no separate supply of water or power to the flat but there is a check meter to separately record the flat’s electricity use which the tenants were to pay for. Gas and water were included in the rent.
The landlord used a standard form residential tenancy agreement to record the agreement.
Ms Zhou says that her son made an error by using the wrong type of agreement and should have used a flat sharing agreement. With respect, I disagree. The evidence satisfies me that in substance, the landlords were renting the flat to the tenants to be used as a separate self-contained place of residence which they exclusively occupied, while the landlords’ family exclusively occupied the remainder of the property as their residence. The occasional common use of outdoor areas does not alter that fundamental arrangement.
I find that the tenancy was not excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(n). The tenancy was one to which the RTA applied and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this dispute. Tenants’ Claims Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants paid the landlord a bond of $2,040.00. There is no dispute that it was not lodged with the Bond Centre. It was refunded to the tenants when the tenancy ended.
By not lodging the tenants’ bond, the landlords 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 landlords’ failure to lodge the bond was intentional but arose from a mistaken belief that they were not required to do so. That error led to other shortcomings in how the landlords documented the parties’ agreement and to a failure to include required information in it. It is however an error that should not have been made.
I take into account that the error was genuine and that the landlords refunded the tenants’ bond. I also take into account that there is a public interest in landlords taking reasonable steps to ensure that they are aware of their obligations and act lawfully when renting out residential premises.
Balancing those considerations, I find that a modest award of exemplary damages would be just.

Are these unlawful premises?

Section 78A RTA authorises the Tribunal to consider whether premises are unlawful residential premises, whether an application is made for that purpose or not.
The landlords say that the premises were built, with the 2 bedroom flat consented. The tenants say that apart from some difficulties they had managing mould the premises were quite habitable and suitable for residential use.
The evidence does not support a finding that the premises, “....cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation)” in terms of s.78A(2) RTA. I note however that the landlords should ensure that the flat, as well as being built to code and consented, is able to be rented out to a separate household, rather than just used ancillary to the main dwelling. Electricity
The evidence shows that despite there being a check meter on the flat, Mr Yu refused to provide the tenants with the meter readings when charging them for electricity use. The tenants claim that they have been overcharged.
The landlords have provided the supplier invoices for the period from June 2024 to January 2025. Even though there were 2 tenants living in the flat and up to 4 people living in the rest of the property, some months almost all of the electricity charges for the whole property were charged to the tenants.
The invoices show an average monthly electricity cost of $133.50 for the whole of the property. As it is the landlords’ responsibility to ensure that only metered electricity use is recovered, it is appropriate that the Tribunal be conservative in estimating the tenants’ liability. That, and given that there were up to 4 people living in the rest of the property, leads me to assess $40.00 per month as the tenants’ share of the electricity charges - $480.00 over the 12 months of the tenancy. The tenants have proved having paid $940.00 for electricity, the landlords have already refunded $200.00. The tenants should be refunded a further $260.00 ($940.00 paid - $480.00 payable - $200.00 already refunded). Dehumidifier
The tenants’ evidence is that after moving in they found a problem with the curtains being mouldy which they raised with the landlord. They arranged for the curtains to be washed and treated and bought a dehumidifier.
The landlords refunded the tenants for the cost of the curtain treatments. The tenants claim reimbursement for the cost of the dehumidifier - $729.00.
The evidence does not prove that the mould issues or the tenants’ decision to buy a dehumidifier were caused by a breach of the landlords’ obligations.
The tenant’s have retained the dehumidifier and although their evidence is that they do not need to use it in their current accommodation, very many households choose to operate dehumidifiers and the tenants may well benefit from having the dehumidifier available for their future use.
For those reasons, that claim is declined. Breach of right to quiet enjoyment/ harassment
The tenants say that on 6 January 2025 Ms Zhou abused and insulted [The tenant/s] saying, “This had a serious impact on my heart. It also had an irreversible effect on my state of depression......”
In terms of s.38 (2) RTA, “The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” Breach of that provision in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is essentially contractual. Parties’ conduct is relevant, where provided by the RTA, in the context of their landlord/ tenant relationship. Even if Ms Zhou did say things she ought not have, in the context of a dispute over end of tenancy issues, that did not amount to an interference with the tenants’ use of the premises, because by then the tenancy had ended.
That claim is dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136529 — Exemplary damages at 21 Mulroy Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136529 — Exemplary damages at 21 Mulroy Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are these unlawful premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are these unlawful premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions