What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5162477 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 5162477?

Compensation: Key Money Refunded: $59.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress and inconvenien…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful residential t…: $3,626.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162477?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11886322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5162477 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 5162477?

Compensation: Key Money Refunded: $59.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress and inconvenien…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful residential t…: $3,626.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162477?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11886322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Mariner Drive, Gulf Harbour, Whangaparaoa 0930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5162477 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162477 — net $7,148.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,436.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: Landlord requiring key money	$750.00	Landlord requiring key money
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Key money refunded	$59.00	Key money refunded
Compensation: Unlawful residential tenancy	$3,626.00	Unlawful residential tenancy
Compensation: Stress and inconvenience	$750.00	Stress and inconvenience
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,148.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,148.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. The Tribunal declares that the premises are unlawful residential premises. (Section 78A Residential Tenancies Act 1986)
Rex Miles As Trustee Of Syzygy Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $7,148.00 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing.
The notice of hearing was sent to the landlord at the email address used by the landlord on 12 January 2025. I am satisfied that the landlord had notice of the hearing. Section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where notice has been given to a party and that party does not attend at the hearing, the Tribunal may hear and determine the matter in the absence of that party. Therefore, the hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is Syzygy Trust. A trust is not a legal entity. The landlord is the trustee of the trust. In the tenancy agreement the Landlord Statement and Healthy Homes Standards Statement is signed by Rex Miles as landlord. The same signature appears at the end of the Property Inspection Report and on page 6 of the agreement. I therefore assume that Rex Miles is a trustee of the Syzygy Trust. I have named Rex Miles as landlord in these proceedings. This conclusion is also supported by the email dated 12 January 2025.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond, compensation, exemplary damages and a declaration that the premises is an unlawful residential premise. Unlawful residential premises
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
The tenant has produced photographs of the premises. It comprises of a small room with a bunk bed. At one end of the room is a small door leading to a bathroom. In the bathroom there is a small sink with a waste pipe going straight down to a channel drain. In the same room there is a toilet with a shower above. The door to the bathroom opens inwards which provides very little space for entering the bathroom.
On the deck outside the room is a small kitchen area comprising of a small under bench fridge, a sink and some cabinets with a bench on top. There is a microwave on a shelf attached to the wall. There is a small table and chair. The outside wall of the deck is trellis. The space is not completely closed in from the elements. The floor is decking timber. The roof is a type of polycarbonate sheeting.
The premises are attached to the back of a garage which has been converted and contains another tenant. The tenant said that she has complained to Auckland Council about the premises and the Council advised that this case has been referred to its serious investigation’s unit.
On the evidence produced I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that these premises are unlawful. The tenant said she considered the outdoor kitchen to be a huge safety risk especially after rain. She was worried about being electrocuted. She complained to the landlord about the roof on the deck leaking onto the kitchen bench. The landlord said that it was not leaking and dismissed her complaints.
The tenant also referred to the unhealthy living conditions due to no ventilation in the bathroom, the drainage being unhygienic, and the water pooling and wetting the carpet. In addition, there was no temperature control on the shower. The tenant also referred to there being no working smoke alarm and no running hot water in the kitchen. There was no insulation in the roof space.
It is in the public interest that when a landlord offers premises for a residential tenancy that they take all steps to ensure that those premises are lawful. Adherence to the Building Codes is important as those codes set out minimum standards with such things as fire prevention and smoke alarms, insulation, ventilation, structural strength and integrity, escape routes for fire and sanitation.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with “all requirements of the buildings, health and safety so far as they apply to the premises”. I am satisfied on the evidence presented that the landlord has not complied with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety which is a breach of section 45 (1)(c) RTA and therefore the premises are unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes.
Where it finds unlawful residential premises section 78A(4) applies. S78A(4) states; The Tribunal may order the landlord to pay the tenant – (i)The whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful premises; or (ii)An amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct.
I consider that section 78A(4)(a)(ii) should apply to this case because applying section 78A(4)(a)(i) would be unfair to the landlord as the tenant has had some amenity of living at the property.
At this point I must carefully weigh what amount of rent it is fair to deduct. Other than taking into account the nature of the premises, “the special circumstances” that I must have regard to are not stated within the RTA. However other Tribunal decisions have weighed the following factors: a.The landlord’s motivation for renting the property, and their conduct during the tenancy. b. The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim, and the length of time he lived in the property. c. The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. d. The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. e. The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. f. Any other breaches by the landlord. g. Any detriment or loss the tenant suffered. h. The purpose of s 78A in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. i. The public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies. j.Any other compensation or exemplary damages that are ordered.
The tenant stayed at the tenancy for 14 weeks and paid $5,026.00 at $359.00 per week. After taking account of the evidence and the circumstances I consider that the tenant should be refunded $259.00 per week, totalling $3,626.00. Specific factors in determining this award are: a) The substandard conditions of the kitchen including not having adequate roofing, walls, flooring and running hot water; b) safety and health concerns for the tenant in the premises including using electrical appliances in the outside kitchen, unsafe plumbing, lack of ventilation and smoke alarms; and c) the landlord’s failure to address the leaking kitchen roof. Key money
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has requested ‘key money’.
A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(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 17(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord required the tenant to pay $59.00 to make an application for a tenancy. In the message to the tenant the landlord said, “Please pay the first week rent and the $59 service fee to Angela, and for preparing the tenancy agreement.” I find that this amounts to a request for key money, and is 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 (s 109(3) RTA).
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 1 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed.
In this situation the landlord did not attend the hearing to explain why he required the payment of key money. The prohibition on requiring key money has been a consistent part of New Zealand tenancy law since 1987.
After considering the evidence and the above factors I award exemplary damages of $750.00. I also refund the tenant with the application fee that was improperly charged. Bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. 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. 1 Section 109 RTA
The landlord has other tenancies. The requirement to lodge bond money with the Bond Centre is not a new concept. The landlord must be aware of this requirement but has failed to comply. By not lodging the bond the money has not been released to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. Instead, the landlord had tried to unlawfully retain some of the bond money.
I award exemplary damages of $500 for this unlawful act. The bond money is also refunded in full. Compensation
The tenant applied for compensation for the financial hardship and emotional stress caused by the landlord in not refunding her bond at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant produced communication between the tenant and landlord. The tenant requested refund of her bond on 28 January 2025, two days after moving out. On 31 January 2025 the landlord responded by saying that it had been a difficult time to relet the sleepout during the holiday season. On 9 March 2025 the tenant sent another message asking for return of the bond and advising that it had caused her financial strain and emotional stress. On the same day the landlord replied saying that he always intended to return the tenant’s bond but felt justified to hold on because the tenancy had been for a 12-month fixed term. He proposed refunding three weeks of bond but retaining one week for the time and expense of relisting the cabin.
The landlord did not raise any issues about the condition that the premises were left in. Also, the tenancy was not a fixed term tenancy and the tenant had provided the landlord with the required notice. The landlord had no basis for retaining any of the bond.
The tenant produced a letter from a psychologist providing further detail about the impact this situation has had on the tenant including that it has impacted on her mental health.
I accept that the landlord’s actions have had an impact on the tenant’s wellbeing. I consider that an award of $750.00 compensation is reasonable and that is the amount awarded.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name from this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162477 — net $7,148.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,436.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: Landlord requiring key money	$750.00	Landlord requiring key money
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Key money refunded	$59.00	Key money refunded
Compensation: Unlawful residential tenancy	$3,626.00	Unlawful residential tenancy
Compensation: Stress and inconvenience	$750.00	Stress and inconvenience
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,148.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,148.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. The Tribunal declares that the premises are unlawful residential premises. (Section 78A Residential Tenancies Act 1986)
Rex Miles As Trustee Of Syzygy Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $7,148.00 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing.
The notice of hearing was sent to the landlord at the email address used by the landlord on 12 January 2025. I am satisfied that the landlord had notice of the hearing. Section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where notice has been given to a party and that party does not attend at the hearing, the Tribunal may hear and determine the matter in the absence of that party. Therefore, the hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is Syzygy Trust. A trust is not a legal entity. The landlord is the trustee of the trust. In the tenancy agreement the Landlord Statement and Healthy Homes Standards Statement is signed by Rex Miles as landlord. The same signature appears at the end of the Property Inspection Report and on page 6 of the agreement. I therefore assume that Rex Miles is a trustee of the Syzygy Trust. I have named Rex Miles as landlord in these proceedings. This conclusion is also supported by the email dated 12 January 2025.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond, compensation, exemplary damages and a declaration that the premises is an unlawful residential premise. Unlawful residential premises
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
The tenant has produced photographs of the premises. It comprises of a small room with a bunk bed. At one end of the room is a small door leading to a bathroom. In the bathroom there is a small sink with a waste pipe going straight down to a channel drain. In the same room there is a toilet with a shower above. The door to the bathroom opens inwards which provides very little space for entering the bathroom.
On the deck outside the room is a small kitchen area comprising of a small under bench fridge, a sink and some cabinets with a bench on top. There is a microwave on a shelf attached to the wall. There is a small table and chair. The outside wall of the deck is trellis. The space is not completely closed in from the elements. The floor is decking timber. The roof is a type of polycarbonate sheeting.
The premises are attached to the back of a garage which has been converted and contains another tenant. The tenant said that she has complained to Auckland Council about the premises and the Council advised that this case has been referred to its serious investigation’s unit.
On the evidence produced I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that these premises are unlawful. The tenant said she considered the outdoor kitchen to be a huge safety risk especially after rain. She was worried about being electrocuted. She complained to the landlord about the roof on the deck leaking onto the kitchen bench. The landlord said that it was not leaking and dismissed her complaints.
The tenant also referred to the unhealthy living conditions due to no ventilation in the bathroom, the drainage being unhygienic, and the water pooling and wetting the carpet. In addition, there was no temperature control on the shower. The tenant also referred to there being no working smoke alarm and no running hot water in the kitchen. There was no insulation in the roof space.
It is in the public interest that when a landlord offers premises for a residential tenancy that they take all steps to ensure that those premises are lawful. Adherence to the Building Codes is important as those codes set out minimum standards with such things as fire prevention and smoke alarms, insulation, ventilation, structural strength and integrity, escape routes for fire and sanitation.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with “all requirements of the buildings, health and safety so far as they apply to the premises”. I am satisfied on the evidence presented that the landlord has not complied with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety which is a breach of section 45 (1)(c) RTA and therefore the premises are unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes.
Where it finds unlawful residential premises section 78A(4) applies. S78A(4) states; The Tribunal may order the landlord to pay the tenant – (i)The whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful premises; or (ii)An amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct.
I consider that section 78A(4)(a)(ii) should apply to this case because applying section 78A(4)(a)(i) would be unfair to the landlord as the tenant has had some amenity of living at the property.
At this point I must carefully weigh what amount of rent it is fair to deduct. Other than taking into account the nature of the premises, “the special circumstances” that I must have regard to are not stated within the RTA. However other Tribunal decisions have weighed the following factors: a.The landlord’s motivation for renting the property, and their conduct during the tenancy. b. The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim, and the length of time he lived in the property. c. The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. d. The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. e. The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. f. Any other breaches by the landlord. g. Any detriment or loss the tenant suffered. h. The purpose of s 78A in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. i. The public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies. j.Any other compensation or exemplary damages that are ordered.
The tenant stayed at the tenancy for 14 weeks and paid $5,026.00 at $359.00 per week. After taking account of the evidence and the circumstances I consider that the tenant should be refunded $259.00 per week, totalling $3,626.00. Specific factors in determining this award are: a) The substandard conditions of the kitchen including not having adequate roofing, walls, flooring and running hot water; b) safety and health concerns for the tenant in the premises including using electrical appliances in the outside kitchen, unsafe plumbing, lack of ventilation and smoke alarms; and c) the landlord’s failure to address the leaking kitchen roof. Key money
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has requested ‘key money’.
A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(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 17(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord required the tenant to pay $59.00 to make an application for a tenancy. In the message to the tenant the landlord said, “Please pay the first week rent and the $59 service fee to Angela, and for preparing the tenancy agreement.” I find that this amounts to a request for key money, and is 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 (s 109(3) RTA).
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 1 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed.
In this situation the landlord did not attend the hearing to explain why he required the payment of key money. The prohibition on requiring key money has been a consistent part of New Zealand tenancy law since 1987.
After considering the evidence and the above factors I award exemplary damages of $750.00. I also refund the tenant with the application fee that was improperly charged. Bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. 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. 1 Section 109 RTA
The landlord has other tenancies. The requirement to lodge bond money with the Bond Centre is not a new concept. The landlord must be aware of this requirement but has failed to comply. By not lodging the bond the money has not been released to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. Instead, the landlord had tried to unlawfully retain some of the bond money.
I award exemplary damages of $500 for this unlawful act. The bond money is also refunded in full. Compensation
The tenant applied for compensation for the financial hardship and emotional stress caused by the landlord in not refunding her bond at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant produced communication between the tenant and landlord. The tenant requested refund of her bond on 28 January 2025, two days after moving out. On 31 January 2025 the landlord responded by saying that it had been a difficult time to relet the sleepout during the holiday season. On 9 March 2025 the tenant sent another message asking for return of the bond and advising that it had caused her financial strain and emotional stress. On the same day the landlord replied saying that he always intended to return the tenant’s bond but felt justified to hold on because the tenancy had been for a 12-month fixed term. He proposed refunding three weeks of bond but retaining one week for the time and expense of relisting the cabin.
The landlord did not raise any issues about the condition that the premises were left in. Also, the tenancy was not a fixed term tenancy and the tenant had provided the landlord with the required notice. The landlord had no basis for retaining any of the bond.
The tenant produced a letter from a psychologist providing further detail about the impact this situation has had on the tenant including that it has impacted on her mental health.
I accept that the landlord’s actions have had an impact on the tenant’s wellbeing. I consider that an award of $750.00 compensation is reasonable and that is the amount awarded.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name from this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162477 — Exemplary damages at 2 Mariner Drive, Gulf Harbour, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162477 — Exemplary damages at 2 Mariner Drive, Gulf Harbour, Whangaparaoa 0930

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