What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5138235 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 5138235?

Compensation: Property without water…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138235?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138235?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11734518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5138235 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 5138235?

Compensation: Property without water…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138235?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138235?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11734518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5138235 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138235 — net $1,797.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond with Bond Centre	$350.00	Failure to lodge bond with Bond Centre
Compensation: Property without water for 11 days	$200.00	Property without water for 11 days
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards for heating and ventilation	$720.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards for heating and ventilation
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	62. I will award exemplary damages of $500.00.
Net award	$1,797.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,797.00

The adjournment order dated 21 March 2025 sets out the background to the tenants’ application.

The second hearing took place in person at the [Event location suppressed] on 16 April 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Jurisdiction

Mr Lenoir did not participate in the phone hearing on 21 March.

I made a finding that [The tenant/s] tenancy was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and that therefore the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction.

Mr Lenoir made some submissions about jurisdiction at the hearing today.

Mr Lenoir did not agree that the RTA applies. Mr Lenoir said that the property is a “Guest Lodge” with long terms guests that is operated commercially. Mr Lenoir said that he received a letter from the Ministry of Social Development confirming that the RTA does not apply. Mr Lenoir said that he pays GST on the ‘guest’ income, which he would not have to do if it was residential rent.

Mr Lenoir’s ownership and tax arrangements have no bearing on whether the RTA applies.

Mr Lenoir did not produce a copy of the letter from the Ministry of Social Development.

The RTA applies to every residential tenancy unless it is specifically excluded. 1

A residential tenancy is the right to occupy residential premises in exchange for rent or other valuable consideration. Residential premises means any premises used, or intended to be used, as a place of residence by any person. 2

In this instance: a. The premises are residential premises. b. The trustees of the OPT-NZ Family Trust granted [The tenant/s] the right to occupy the premises in exchange for rent. c. It is not an excluded tenancy. 3

I remain of the view that the RTA applied to this tenancy and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s application.

Mr Lenoir said that he wants to bring a claim against [The tenant/s] for damage and other costs. Mr Lenoir has filed that claim in the Disputes Tribunal. I indicated to Mr Lenoir that, in light of my finding that the RTA applies, the Disputes Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to determine that claim. Mr Lenoir replied that he wants to attempt to pursue the claim in the Disputes Tribunal. 1 Section 4 RTA 2 Section 2 RTA definitions of “tenancy” and “residential premises” 3 Section 5 RTA Tenants’ claims

I set out the tenants’ claims in paragraph 9 of the adjournment order. Return of the bond

The tenancy has ended, and the tenants are entitled to a refund of the bond unless the landlord has any proven claims for costs (such as rent arrears, repairs, cleaning, rubbish removal, etc).

As noted above, Mr Lenoir does wish to claim for end of tenancy costs totalling approximately $5,000.

This tenancy ended in December 2024. Mr Lenoir failed to deal properly with the bond (as discussed below). In the circumstances I am reluctant to leave the bond dispute ‘on hold’ whilst Mr Lenoir pursues a Disputes Tribunal claim that is likely to be struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

However, I also acknowledge that Mr Lenoir has a claim for damage (etc) and he has a right to have that claim heard, in the correct forum. It would be inappropriate to release the bond until that claim is heard and determined. Therefore I will not order the return of the bond to the tenants at this time. Failure to lodge the bond

Landlords must forward all bond payments to the Bond Centre within 23-days of a receipt.

Failure to do so is an unlawful act. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1500 for this unlawful act.

In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 4 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.

In this instance: a. Mr Lenoir did not pay the bond to the Bond Centre. b. I accept that Mr Lenoir genuinely did not think that he was a landlord and that he had to pay the bond to the Bond Centre. 4 Section 109 RTA c. The purpose of requiring landlords to send the bond to the Bond Centre is so that it can be held by a neutral third party in the event of a dispute.

Mr Lenoir failed to meet his legal duty as a landlord and it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages.

The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 5

In this instance it is a mitigating factor that Mr Lenoir did not understand that he was a landlord subject to the obligations in the RTA. This misunderstanding of the law does not exonerate Mr Lenoir, but it is a relevant mitigating factor because it reduces the element of intention that the Tribunal is required to consider.

I will award exemplary damages of $350.00. Failure to maintain

Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

[The tenant/s] said that: a. The lights in the downstairs part of the premises stopped working shortly into their tenancy and were never repaired. b. On multiple occasions they were without power and water (the premises is on tank supply) during the tenancy. c. On one occasion they were without water for 11 days.

Mr Lenoir said that: a. The tenants did not tell him about the lights. b. The power interruptions were due to events outside of his control, including: i. Planned power outages in the area. ii. Severe weather events. iii. High atmospheric moisture causing the RCD to trip.

Most of the communication between the tenants and landlord was verbal. There was some communication by text, and the tenants provided screenshots of some of those messages.

The screenshot messages supplied in evidence include some relating to incidences of ‘no power’. The messages show that Mr Renoir responded when 5 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 the tenants informed him about the problem, usually stating that the loss of power was due to the RCD tripping.

The regular occurrence of this problem is concerning, and possibly indicative of a larger problem with the electrics at the property, however I have no information about this, and it would be inappropriate to speculate.

Although the power interruptions were inconvenient for the tenants, the limited evidence available to me shows that Mr Lenoir responded to the tenants promptly each time that they raised it, and the problem (if it was RCD related) was sorted out reasonably quickly.

On one occasion there was a prolonged period, 11-days, of no water at the property. This happened in March 2023. This was not related to power interruption - the pump was flooded (submerged) in a severe weather event.

The circumstances were clearly beyond Mr Lenoir’s control, and it is not the case that he failed to meet his maintenance duty.

However, the tenants were without an important amenity for a long period of time and it is appropriate to make an award of loss of amenity, effectively a partial refund of rent, for this period.

I will award $200.00.

The tenants said that that the premises were damp and that there were issues with mould. Mr Lenoir said that any mould / dampness problems that the tenants experienced were due to them failing to ventilate the premises adequately. Mr Lenoir also speculated that [The tenant/s] aquariums may have contributed to dampness in the property.

The tenants acknowledged that they did not raise this issue with Mr Lenoir during the tenancy. I was not provided with any evidence, such as photographs, showing the dampness and mould.

This part of the tenant’s application is not proven. Healthy homes

Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 6

The healthy homes standard for heating requires a fixed means of heating in the main living area of the property.

The healthy homes standard for ventilation requires that the kitchen (and bathroom) have an extraction fan that vents to the outside, or a continuous mechanical extraction that meets certain criteria. 6 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA

There is no fixed means of heating and no extraction in the kitchen of this property.

Mr Lenoir did not argue that an exemption applies.

Failure to meet the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7200 can apply.

I set out above the criteria that the Tribunal must have regard to in considering an award of exemplary damages.

I also note that the Tribunal must take a “global approach” and make a single award of exemplary damages if there are multiple breaches of the same section of the RTA. 7

It is a relevant mitigating factor that Mr Lenoir was genuinely unaware that he was required to meet the healthy homes obligations. Mr Lenoir said that the house is a relatively new build and that it was built to a high specification. The tenants said that they found the premises to be damp and mouldy. There is little evidence around this.

Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $720.00. Unlawful entry

On 6 December 2024 Mr Lenoir sent the tenants a message asking if he could enter the premises the next day to take photographs for the purpose of advertising.

The tenants declined on the grounds that they were going away.

Mr Lenoir entered the premises on 7 December.

A landlord’s legal right to enter tenanted premises is limited.

A landlord can enter the premises for the purposes of showing them to prospective tenants “with the prior consent of the tenant”. 8 The tenant cannot withhold their consent unreasonably. 9

It is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter the premises in circumstances where they have no legal right to enter. Exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 can apply.

In this instance: a. The tenants did not consent to Mr Lenoir entering on 7 December 2024. 7 MBIE v Hillis Shearing Ltd [2024] NZDC 27583 8 Section 48(3) RTA 9 Section 48(3A)(a) RTA b. The tenants’ reason for not consenting was reasonable. Given the deterioration of the relationship between landlord and tenant by that time, it was reasonable for the tenants to want to be present if Mr Lenoir was going inside the premises.

Mr Lenoir said that the tenants left the door unlocked and ajar, and that he took a ‘few steps’ inside.

The still from the tenants’ video evidence shows that the latter statement is not correct. Mr Lenoir can be seen heading up the stairs, well beyond the front door. It would be surprising if the tenants left the front door unlocked and ajar as Mr Lenoir suggests, but in any event that does not amount to permission for him to go inside.

Mr Lenoir entered the premises unlawfully and it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.

The fact that Mr Lenoir did not understand that he was a landlord is not a mitigating factor in this instance. The tenants had plainly declined consent for Mr Lenoir to enter. Even if Mr Lenoir did not have the RTA in his mind, he knew or ought to have known that he was doing something wrong.

I will award exemplary damages of $500.00. Filing fee, name suppression

The tenants sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenants were substantially successful in the proceedings. 10

I must also award the tenants the filing fee for the application. 11

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138235 — net $1,797.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond with Bond Centre	$350.00	Failure to lodge bond with Bond Centre
Compensation: Property without water for 11 days	$200.00	Property without water for 11 days
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes standards for heating and ventilation	$720.00	Failure to meet healthy homes standards for heating and ventilation
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	62. I will award exemplary damages of $500.00.
Net award	$1,797.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,797.00