What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5166539 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5166539?

Compensation: landlord breaches towa…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: section 13 RTA breache…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: section 19 RTA breache…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Payment For Gallagher Gate: $289.00 awarded to tenant; Payment For Stove Top: $249.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $341.61 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166539?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12585054-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5166539 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5166539?

Compensation: landlord breaches towa…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: section 13 RTA breache…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: section 19 RTA breache…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Payment For Gallagher Gate: $289.00 awarded to tenant; Payment For Stove Top: $249.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $341.61 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166539?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12585054-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49 Fairview Road, Fairview, RD 2, Timaru 7972 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5166539 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166539 — net $996.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$500.00		Rent arrears
Compensation for repairs	$341.61		Compensation for repairs
Payment for Gallagher gate		$289.00	Payment for Gallagher gate
Payment for stove top		$249.00	Payment for stove top
Refund bond (not lodged		$600.00	Refund bond (not lodged
Compensation: section 13 RTA breaches		$100.00	section 13 RTA breaches
Compensation: section 19 RTA breaches		$300.00	section 19 RTA breaches
Compensation: landlord breaches towards end of tenancy		$300.00	landlord breaches towards end of tenancy
Total award	$841.61	$1,838.00
Net award		$996.39
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$996.39

Order

[The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $996.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for the cost of building a fence is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held in Timaru on 20 October 2025. I first heard the application on 21 July 2025. I adjourned that hearing with directions for the parties to provide further evidence relevant to the rent arrears claim and for the tenant to provide the text message terminating the tenancy.
I also directed the return of chattels by the landlord to the tenant. The parties confirmed that the chattels have been returned.
Once the parties produced their further evidence, I decided to reconvene the hearing since I could not reconcile the rent records. Background
The tenancy started around mid-September 2019 and was to end on 31 July 2024. The tenants gave written notice to end the tenancy. The landlord took possession before then.
The parties were acquaintances who worked together, and the tenancy arose informally, and it seems in a friendly way. There was no written tenancy agreement.
The tenancy did not end well. By then the parties were locked in dispute and the landlord served a trespass notice on them.
Each party then applied to the Tribunal for orders. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for several alleged breaches by the landlord, and compensation for building a fence. They also sought the return of chattels. As I have noted that issue has been resolved.
The landlord seeks rent arrears dating back to 2019 and compensation for repairs. In the application, the landlord mentioned the removal of a farm cyclone wire fence, the reinstatement of framework in the garage, and rubbish removal. The landlord confirmed at the first hearing that they sought nothing from the Tribunal arising from those matters.
The landlord also sought exemplary damages. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Can the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of building the fence? •What orders can be made about the tenant’s chattels? •Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for the repair of damage? •Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages? Relevant law
Section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s duties on receipt of a bond.
Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that 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.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 13A RTA sets out what must be contained in a tenancy agreement.
Section 60AA RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give notice to terminate to the tenant knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Section 85 RTA is important in this case so, I will set it out in full: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Can the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of building the fence?

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with general civil law disputes. The Tribunal only adjudicates disputes that arise between landlords and tenants in relation to the tenancy.
Even though parties are in a landlord/tenant relationship, they can still enter into civil contractual agreements. That is what happened here. The parties reached an agreement about the building of a fence. The tenants began building the fence before they entered into the tenancy or took possession. The landlord later agreed to pay them for the fence, but after receiving legal advice declined to do so. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
This is a civil dispute between the parties which falls under the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal. It is not a dispute in relation to the tenancy. I dismiss this claim for want of jurisdiction. What orders can be made about the tenant’s chattels?
I ordered the return of the tenant’s chattels in my order dated 21 July 2025, with a consequential money order for non-compliance. The parties have confirmed that the chattels have been returned.
The landlord agreed to pay the tenants for a Gallagher gate and for a stove top and to return other chattels. I have included the cost of the gate and the stove top in this order. I have marked them with * to show they are awarded by consent. No further orders are needed.

Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages?

The tenant claimed exemplary damages for several alleged unlawful acts by the landlord as follows: •There was no written tenancy agreement so none of the required information was provided. •The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. •The landlord failed to keep proper records. •The landlord unlawfully seized the tenant’s goods. •The landlord breached the tenant’s privacy. •The landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). •The landlord unlawfully entered the premises. •The landlord unlawfully ended the tenancy. •The landlord did not ensure that all locks were working.
Usually, the Tribunal would separately assess each of these claims and decide the level of exemplary damages to be awarded.
Here though, the overall context of the tenancy and how it began is relevant. I have noted that the parties were work acquaintances, friends even. They were on good terms generally. The tenancy went well for a long time, starting in October 2019. It was only in mid-2024 that the relationship soured.
People in these situations often enter into informal arrangements that suit them both. But when relationships founder, they then turn to their statutory rights and in a sense ‘throw the book’ at each other.
The Tribunal must look behind that to the reality of the situation. It is cautious when claims are made after 5 years of an otherwise mutually beneficial tenancy. I have set out section 38 RTA in full since the facts of this case mean that the Tribunal is right to approach its decision with that section in mind.
In some instances, claims for exemplary damages are simply not proved. For example, given the start date of the tenancy, the landlord did not miss any timeframes for ensuring the premises were HHS compliant. So that claim could not succeed as there was no unlawful act. And the landlord did not unlawfully end the tenancy. The tenants gave notice by text message to end the tenancy. That the landlord then locked them out shortly before the end of the notice period, and issued a trespass notice, is a separate issue.
Nor would the Tribunal consider that the landlord committed an unlawful act as it concerns the supply of keys. The supply of keys is to ensure that the premises are ‘reasonably secure’. If there were some locks that did not have keys, the tenants could have requested them or issued a 14-day notice for them to be supplied. The unlawful act also applies to the landlord altering, adding, or removing any lock without the other party’s consent 2 . I do not find such a claim against the landlord proved.
The landlord did commit some unlawful acts. There was no written tenancy agreement so required information about insurance, and HHS compliance dates, and insulation was not disclosed. The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre.
For exemplary damages to be awarded, the party seeking them must prove that the landlord acted with intent. That means that the landlord ‘turned their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately set about to commit it’ 3
This was the first time the landlord had rented premises. The landlord acted negligently by not complying with their statutory responsibilities, but negligence is not sufficient for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages.
The same applies to the other unlawful acts alleged by the tenants. The landlord was misguided in their actions towards the end of the tenancy. They did not know how to act as landlords. They were negligent. But I cannot find that they committed any unlawful act with intent.
That the landlord did not keep proper records means that their claim for historic rent arrears cannot succeed, something I will address later. 2 See section 46 RTA 3 See Birch (footnote 1)
That said, while the tenants have not been successful in establishing a claim for exemplary damages, the Tribunal can still award them compensation for the landlord’s breaches 4 . I have awarded them compensation for the breaches they have proved – the failure to provide a tenancy agreement and disclose required information, the failure to lodge the bond, and the landlord’s actions towards the end of the tenancy.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

At the first hearing the landlord claimed rent arrears of $4,240.00. The tenants said they owed no rent.
I adjourned the hearing to allow them to provide further evidence about the rent claim Both did so, but I was still unable to reconcile the differences. So, I reconvened the hearing.
The landlord’s rent record confirmed that a bond of $600.00 was paid. I have ordered that the bond be return to the tenants as a credit since it was never lodged and belongs to them.
At the reconvened hearing the landlord sought rent arrears of $4,074.76 to 15 July 2024.
In 2021 the tenants changed to monthly rent payments to align with the payment of their wages. Monthly payments are not the same as 4-weekly payments. As a result, some rent arrears accrued, although the tenants were only made aware of that once the landlord’s application was filed.
Initially, the tenants say that the landlord gave them the incorrect bank account number for the payment of rent, although he corrected that. They were able to show payments of rent to the landlord (evidenced by the production of their bank statements) the landlord says they did not receive.
Not only does a landlord have a duty to keep proper records, they also have a duty to act in a timely manner when claiming rent arrears. That is known as a duty to mitigate loss. When a landlord fails to do that the Tribunal can strike down or reduce a claim for historic rent arrears.
The tenancy started on 11 October 2019. The landlord’s rent records from the start of the tenancy until November 2019 are difficult to understand. That aside, the Tribunal is not prepared to award rent arrears dating back that far. Not only are the records unreliable, but the landlord has done nothing to mitigate their loss.
The only rent arrears I find proved result from the change to monthly rent payments between January and June 2021 (which the tenant appeared to 4 See Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora [2022] NZDC 7003 accept) of $500.00 in total. The remainder of the landlord’s rent record is too confusing to be reliable evidence.
Of the total claim for rent, I award the landlord $500.00 only. Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for the repair of damage?
The landlord has claimed for electrical repairs to address work the tenants had done, repairs to the septic tank, and the removal of a sheep carcase from the tank, repairs to the drip line, and the repair of a broken window.
The tenant accepted that their goat damaged a window in a shed and they accepted that they had a list of repair jobs to do, but they could not complete them as they were locked out.
The tenant denied causing any damage to the septic tank or putting a sheep carcase into the tank, nor damaging the drip line.
The only claim I find proved is for the replacement cost of the window damaged by the tenant’s goat. The quoted price to repair it is $341.61.
The tenant cannot be held liable for repairs they intended doing when the landlord locked them out of the premises before the tenancy ended and served a trespass notice on them.
That the landlord might suffer a loss is a consequence of the way in which the tenancy arose and the lack of monitoring of it. There was no pre-tenancy inspection report signed by both parties, no inspection reports during the tenancy, and, the way in which the tenancy ended, with the landlord wrongly denying the tenant access while the tenancy was still in place.

Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages?

The landlord has not proved any breaches by the tenants that amount to unlawful acts. And for the same reasons given above, I would not have found the necessary element of intent proved even if some of their actions did amount to unlawful acts.
This claim is dismissed. Result
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord will refund the tenants their bond, pay them for the chattels as agreed, and pay some compensation for breaches of a landlord’s responsibilities under the RTA (even though unlawful acts have not been proved).
The tenants will pay the landlord compensation for the accepted window repair and some rent arrears for the period when the rent changed to monthly payments without the required readjustment.
Allowing for the deduction of the landlord’s rent arrears and compensation claims from the amounts awarded to the tenants, the landlord must pay the tenants $996.39.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee each party paid. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
On my enquiry neither party sought an order for name suppression. Comment
The landlord narrowly missed having awards of exemplary damages made against them for their several breaches of the RTA. Should they become a landlord again, they could not expect to receive the leniency they have been given this time, since they are now aware of their statutory responsibilities.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166539 — net $996.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$500.00		Rent arrears
Compensation for repairs	$341.61		Compensation for repairs
Payment for Gallagher gate		$289.00	Payment for Gallagher gate
Payment for stove top		$249.00	Payment for stove top
Refund bond (not lodged		$600.00	Refund bond (not lodged
Compensation: section 13 RTA breaches		$100.00	section 13 RTA breaches
Compensation: section 19 RTA breaches		$300.00	section 19 RTA breaches
Compensation: landlord breaches towards end of tenancy		$300.00	landlord breaches towards end of tenancy
Total award	$841.61	$1,838.00
Net award		$996.39
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$996.39

[The tenant/s] party] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $996.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The landlord’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The tenant’s application for the cost of building a fence is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held in Timaru on 20 October 2025. I first heard the application on 21 July 2025. I adjourned that hearing with directions for the parties to provide further evidence relevant to the rent arrears claim and for the tenant to provide the text message terminating the tenancy.

I also directed the return of chattels by the landlord to the tenant. The parties confirmed that the chattels have been returned.

Once the parties produced their further evidence, I decided to reconvene the hearing since I could not reconcile the rent records. Background

The tenancy started around mid-September 2019 and was to end on 31 July 2024. The tenants gave written notice to end the tenancy. The landlord took possession before then.

The parties were acquaintances who worked together, and the tenancy arose informally, and it seems in a friendly way. There was no written tenancy agreement.

The tenancy did not end well. By then the parties were locked in dispute and the landlord served a trespass notice on them.

Each party then applied to the Tribunal for orders. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for several alleged breaches by the landlord, and compensation for building a fence. They also sought the return of chattels. As I have noted that issue has been resolved.

The landlord seeks rent arrears dating back to 2019 and compensation for repairs. In the application, the landlord mentioned the removal of a farm cyclone wire fence, the reinstatement of framework in the garage, and rubbish removal. The landlord confirmed at the first hearing that they sought nothing from the Tribunal arising from those matters.

The landlord also sought exemplary damages. Issues

The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Can the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of building the fence? •What orders can be made about the tenant’s chattels? •Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for the repair of damage? •Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages? Relevant law

Section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s duties on receipt of a bond.

Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that 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.

Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

Section 13A RTA sets out what must be contained in a tenancy agreement.

Section 60AA RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give notice to terminate to the tenant knowing they are not entitled to do so.

Section 85 RTA is important in this case so, I will set it out in full: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Compensation and exemplary damages

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.

Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Can the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of building the fence?

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with general civil law disputes. The Tribunal only adjudicates disputes that arise between landlords and tenants in relation to the tenancy.

Even though parties are in a landlord/tenant relationship, they can still enter into civil contractual agreements. That is what happened here. The parties reached an agreement about the building of a fence. The tenants began building the fence before they entered into the tenancy or took possession. The landlord later agreed to pay them for the fence, but after receiving legal advice declined to do so. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667

This is a civil dispute between the parties which falls under the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal. It is not a dispute in relation to the tenancy. I dismiss this claim for want of jurisdiction. What orders can be made about the tenant’s chattels?

I ordered the return of the tenant’s chattels in my order dated 21 July 2025, with a consequential money order for non-compliance. The parties have confirmed that the chattels have been returned.

The landlord agreed to pay the tenants for a Gallagher gate and for a stove top and to return other chattels. I have included the cost of the gate and the stove top in this order. I have marked them with * to show they are awarded by consent. No further orders are needed.

Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages?

The tenant claimed exemplary damages for several alleged unlawful acts by the landlord as follows: •There was no written tenancy agreement so none of the required information was provided. •The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. •The landlord failed to keep proper records. •The landlord unlawfully seized the tenant’s goods. •The landlord breached the tenant’s privacy. •The landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). •The landlord unlawfully entered the premises. •The landlord unlawfully ended the tenancy. •The landlord did not ensure that all locks were working.

Usually, the Tribunal would separately assess each of these claims and decide the level of exemplary damages to be awarded.

Here though, the overall context of the tenancy and how it began is relevant. I have noted that the parties were work acquaintances, friends even. They were on good terms generally. The tenancy went well for a long time, starting in October 2019. It was only in mid-2024 that the relationship soured.

People in these situations often enter into informal arrangements that suit them both. But when relationships founder, they then turn to their statutory rights and in a sense ‘throw the book’ at each other.

The Tribunal must look behind that to the reality of the situation. It is cautious when claims are made after 5 years of an otherwise mutually beneficial tenancy. I have set out section 38 RTA in full since the facts of this case mean that the Tribunal is right to approach its decision with that section in mind.

In some instances, claims for exemplary damages are simply not proved. For example, given the start date of the tenancy, the landlord did not miss any timeframes for ensuring the premises were HHS compliant. So that claim could not succeed as there was no unlawful act. And the landlord did not unlawfully end the tenancy. The tenants gave notice by text message to end the tenancy. That the landlord then locked them out shortly before the end of the notice period, and issued a trespass notice, is a separate issue.

Nor would the Tribunal consider that the landlord committed an unlawful act as it concerns the supply of keys. The supply of keys is to ensure that the premises are ‘reasonably secure’. If there were some locks that did not have keys, the tenants could have requested them or issued a 14-day notice for them to be supplied. The unlawful act also applies to the landlord altering, adding, or removing any lock without the other party’s consent 2 . I do not find such a claim against the landlord proved.

The landlord did commit some unlawful acts. There was no written tenancy agreement so required information about insurance, and HHS compliance dates, and insulation was not disclosed. The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre.

For exemplary damages to be awarded, the party seeking them must prove that the landlord acted with intent. That means that the landlord ‘turned their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately set about to commit it’ 3

This was the first time the landlord had rented premises. The landlord acted negligently by not complying with their statutory responsibilities, but negligence is not sufficient for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages.

The same applies to the other unlawful acts alleged by the tenants. The landlord was misguided in their actions towards the end of the tenancy. They did not know how to act as landlords. They were negligent. But I cannot find that they committed any unlawful act with intent.

That the landlord did not keep proper records means that their claim for historic rent arrears cannot succeed, something I will address later. 2 See section 46 RTA 3 See Birch (footnote 1)

That said, while the tenants have not been successful in establishing a claim for exemplary damages, the Tribunal can still award them compensation for the landlord’s breaches 4 . I have awarded them compensation for the breaches they have proved – the failure to provide a tenancy agreement and disclose required information, the failure to lodge the bond, and the landlord’s actions towards the end of the tenancy.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

At the first hearing the landlord claimed rent arrears of $4,240.00. The tenants said they owed no rent.

I adjourned the hearing to allow them to provide further evidence about the rent claim Both did so, but I was still unable to reconcile the differences. So, I reconvened the hearing.

The landlord’s rent record confirmed that a bond of $600.00 was paid. I have ordered that the bond be return to the tenants as a credit since it was never lodged and belongs to them.

At the reconvened hearing the landlord sought rent arrears of $4,074.76 to 15 July 2024.

In 2021 the tenants changed to monthly rent payments to align with the payment of their wages. Monthly payments are not the same as 4-weekly payments. As a result, some rent arrears accrued, although the tenants were only made aware of that once the landlord’s application was filed.

Initially, the tenants say that the landlord gave them the incorrect bank account number for the payment of rent, although he corrected that. They were able to show payments of rent to the landlord (evidenced by the production of their bank statements) the landlord says they did not receive.

Not only does a landlord have a duty to keep proper records, they also have a duty to act in a timely manner when claiming rent arrears. That is known as a duty to mitigate loss. When a landlord fails to do that the Tribunal can strike down or reduce a claim for historic rent arrears.

The tenancy started on 11 October 2019. The landlord’s rent records from the start of the tenancy until November 2019 are difficult to understand. That aside, the Tribunal is not prepared to award rent arrears dating back that far. Not only are the records unreliable, but the landlord has done nothing to mitigate their loss.

The only rent arrears I find proved result from the change to monthly rent payments between January and June 2021 (which the tenant appeared to 4 See Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora [2022] NZDC 7003 accept) of $500.00 in total. The remainder of the landlord’s rent record is too confusing to be reliable evidence.

Of the total claim for rent, I award the landlord $500.00 only. Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for the repair of damage?

The landlord has claimed for electrical repairs to address work the tenants had done, repairs to the septic tank, and the removal of a sheep carcase from the tank, repairs to the drip line, and the repair of a broken window.

The tenant accepted that their goat damaged a window in a shed and they accepted that they had a list of repair jobs to do, but they could not complete them as they were locked out.

The tenant denied causing any damage to the septic tank or putting a sheep carcase into the tank, nor damaging the drip line.

The only claim I find proved is for the replacement cost of the window damaged by the tenant’s goat. The quoted price to repair it is $341.61.

The tenant cannot be held liable for repairs they intended doing when the landlord locked them out of the premises before the tenancy ended and served a trespass notice on them.

That the landlord might suffer a loss is a consequence of the way in which the tenancy arose and the lack of monitoring of it. There was no pre-tenancy inspection report signed by both parties, no inspection reports during the tenancy, and, the way in which the tenancy ended, with the landlord wrongly denying the tenant access while the tenancy was still in place.

Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages?

The landlord has not proved any breaches by the tenants that amount to unlawful acts. And for the same reasons given above, I would not have found the necessary element of intent proved even if some of their actions did amount to unlawful acts.

This claim is dismissed. Result

The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The landlord’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The landlord will refund the tenants their bond, pay them for the chattels as agreed, and pay some compensation for breaches of a landlord’s responsibilities under the RTA (even though unlawful acts have not been proved).

The tenants will pay the landlord compensation for the accepted window repair and some rent arrears for the period when the rent changed to monthly payments without the required readjustment.

Allowing for the deduction of the landlord’s rent arrears and compensation claims from the amounts awarded to the tenants, the landlord must pay the tenants $996.39.

I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee each party paid. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression

On my enquiry neither party sought an order for name suppression. Comment

The landlord narrowly missed having awards of exemplary damages made against them for their several breaches of the RTA. Should they become a landlord again, they could not expect to receive the leniency they have been given this time, since they are now aware of their statutory responsibilities.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166539 — Rent arrears at 49 Fairview Road, Fairview, RD 2, Timaru 7972

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166539 — Rent arrears at 49 Fairview Road, Fairview, RD 2, Timaru 7972

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166539 — Rent arrears at 49 Fairview Road, Fairview, RD 2, Timaru 7972

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166539 — Rent arrears at 49 Fairview Road, Fairview, RD 2, Timaru 7972

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of building the fence?

Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages?

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of building the fence?

Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages?

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.