What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192151 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 5192151?

Property Damage: $1,625.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192151?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12092244-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192151 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 5192151?

Property Damage: $1,625.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192151?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12092244-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

82/84 Collier Avenue, Karori, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5192151 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5192151 — net $1,152.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Insurance excess - living room carpet	$750.00		Insurance excess - living room carpet
Exemplary damages: ending the tenancy without grounds		$1,625.00	ending the tenancy without grounds
Exemplary damages: no written tenancy agreement		$250.00	no written tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$750.00	$1,902.00
Net award		$1,152.00
Bond		$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,152.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names’ and identifying details.
Linda and Martin Meyers must pay [The tenant/s] $1,152.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed. 2

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords had a witness.
The tenants rented the downstairs flat (number 82) from the landlords from 2021 until February this year, when they decided to move into the upstairs flat (number 84) which is also owned by the landlords. The landlords had a representative in Wellington who was not a property manager, but who acted as an agent on their behalf. There was some damage to the carpets in the downstairs flat at the end of the tenancy and the landlords gave the tenants a 90 day notice to leave the upstairs flat. Four applications have been filed relating to both tenancies. The questions I have to decide include: • Were the tenants responsible for damage to the carpet in the downstairs flat? • Did the landlords end the tenancy without grounds? • Did the landlords comply with the requirement to provide information about insurance? • Did the landlords fail to provide a tenancy agreement for the upstairs flat? • Can I allow costs?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the carpets in the downstairs flat?

The tenants accept that their cat had urinated on the lounge carpets. This had obviously happened over time and was worse around the perimeter of the room, where the tenants had boxes and furniture. The tenants said they had no idea the cat had caused damage because they had litter boxes inside which they changed daily. They said they were shocked when they moved out and noticed an odour in the lounge. They have agreed to reimburse the insurance excess for the lounge.
I am persuaded by the tenants’ evidence. It seems most likely to me there was a lack of care rather than intentional damage. I am not persuaded the tenants deliberately hid the damage from the agent who carried out inspections.
The landlords have also claimed the insurance excess for three other rooms because the agent said he found cat urine in the two bedrooms and in the hall. He removed all the carpets and the smooth edge and liaised with Chemdry to have the floor boards treated. The insurer paid for new carpet. The tenants do not agree the cat damaged the carpet in these rooms.
This is the landlords’ claim to prove. The landlords must prove that the tenants caused damage to the three other rooms during the tenancy. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 3
The landlords provided the report from Chemdry which was produced for the insurer. The report, called “Initial Visit Report” is not clearly written. The only place that mentions a cat is under the heading “Job Details & SM WO Details”. That paragraph records: [Agent] will meet you on site [phone number] ACCESS parking in drive infront of garage. [Agent] will meet you there, a few easy steps to the door (6?) Cat issue throughout including wardrobes. [Agent] is [Owner’s’] maintenance person and he has taken out all carpet and underlay, smoothedge, skirtings and will also cut walls where necessary so base plates can also be cleaned and sanitised/purted.
There is also this:
It is not clear to me whether “(6?) Cat issue throughout including wardrobes” is part of the instructions given by the landlords, or part of the report of what Chemdry found. Likewise the “Job Information” could be part of the instructions rather than a finding. I find I cannot rely on the Chemdry report.
The insurer did pay for new carpet but I have not been provided with any emails or reports about the claim, so there is no supporting evidence for the landlords’ verbal submissions that there was cat damage in the other rooms.
The only person who saw the damaged carpets in the rest of the flat was the agent. He took photos. At the hearing the tenants established that the photos showing damaged carpet in the bedrooms were actually photos of the lounge carpet. This means I have not been provided with any photos of the damaged carpet in the bedrooms or the hall.
The agent gave evidence as a witness. He recalled finding the damage and the process he followed to remediate and facilitate the installation of new carpet. He said the man from Chemdry could identify salt crystals in the rooms which proved there was cat urine present. This is not mentioned in the Chemdry report. The agent also conceded that an inspection dated July 2024 – which mentions concerns about the cat – could not be correct because that inspection was cancelled. Consequently I do not find the agent’s evidence to be reliable.
The landlord has not provided better evidence than the tenants. The claim for the excesses for the bedrooms and the hallway is dismissed.
The tenants also brought a claim that the landlord demanded payment of an amount that exceeded their liability for careless damage. I read all the documents including the emails and the claim was not proved on the evidence provided. This claim was dismissed at the hearing. 4

Did the landlords give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

The tenants claim that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA, which provides that a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlords agreed that on 4 March 2025 the agent gave the tenants 48 hours notice to leave the upstairs flat. Two days later he extended the 48 hours to five days. On 9 March, after talking with the tenants, the landlords agreed the tenants could stay in the upstairs flat for 90 days. A valid 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy was served on 11 March. There is no provision in the RTA which allows a landlord to give verbal notice to a tenancy with two or five days notice. See section 51 RTA.
I find the landlords 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) RTA.
The landlords said the agent gave notice as a knee jerk reaction after he found out there was damage to the carpets in the downstairs flat. He was not acting on instructions. Nonetheless the landlords are responsible for the actions of their agent. I find the agent acted intentionally and there was no reasonable excuse. The effect for the tenants was shock and stress. They spent six days getting legal advice and considering their options. It is in tenants interests that landlords follow the rules for giving notice. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance with the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1,625. This at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders for the same breach, and because the tenants did not have to move out until after a valid notice was given. Did the landlords comply with the requirement to provide information about insurance?
The tenants claim the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises. Tenants can request landlords to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenants liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the 5 information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) RTA.
I note that the insurance information the tenants requested related to the downstairs flat and they asked for it after the downstairs tenancy ended. I find there are no grounds for this claim because the requirement to provide information only applies during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords fail to provide a tenancy agreement for the upstairs flat?

The tenants claim the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement for the upstairs flat was in writing and/or did not provide a copy to the tenant. Section 13 RTA provides that landlords must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed, and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The agent facilitated the tenants move to the upstairs flat. He did not provide a tenancy agreement before the tenancy started. The landlords said he acted without their knowledge and they provided a written tenancy agreement about a month later, when they were back from holiday. It seems most likely to me the tenants considered the agent to have the authority to act on behalf of the landlords. This means the landlords are responsible for the actions of the agent. I find the landlords have committed an unlawful act because they did not provide a tenancy agreement before the start of the tenancy.
The same considerations apply for exemplary damages. The landlords said there was no intention, but the agent intended to start a tenancy without a written tenancy agreement. The effect for the tenants was they believed they could be forced to move out at short notice because there was no tenancy agreement. It is in tenants interests that landlords disclose the details of the tenancy before the tenancy starts, so tenants can make informed choices. There is public interest in a penalty when landlords ignore the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $250 which is at the lower end of the scale for the same reasons.
I note that the tenancy agreement provided for both tenancies contained many clauses which were contrary to the tenants’ rights under the RTA. This is a breach of section 137 RTA, which prohibits agreements which contravene the provisions of the RTA or evade, defeat, or prevent the operation of the RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800. See section 137 and Schedule 1A RTA. 6
The tenants have not made a claim for breaches of the tenancy agreement. If they had I would have awarded more exemplary damages against the landlords. The landlords should take this opportunity to get legal advice about how to manage their current tenancies which have been contracted using the same tenancy agreement.

Can I order costs?

The landlords have claimed their travel costs to attend the hearing and the agent’s time for attending the hearing. This claim was dismissed at the hearing. Section 102 RTA only allows me to consider costs when a party has been legally represented, when the claim against them is vexatious, or should have settled at mediation. These applications do not fit within the exceptions. Other orders
The bond is refunded in full to the tenants. A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have made an application for suppression. This is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlords’ names are published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5192151 — net $1,152.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Insurance excess - living room carpet	$750.00		Insurance excess - living room carpet
Exemplary damages: ending the tenancy without grounds		$1,625.00	ending the tenancy without grounds
Exemplary damages: no written tenancy agreement		$250.00	no written tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$750.00	$1,902.00
Net award		$1,152.00
Bond		$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,152.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names’ and identifying details.
Linda and Martin Meyers must pay [The tenant/s] $1,152.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed. 2

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords had a witness.
The tenants rented the downstairs flat (number 82) from the landlords from 2021 until February this year, when they decided to move into the upstairs flat (number 84) which is also owned by the landlords. The landlords had a representative in Wellington who was not a property manager, but who acted as an agent on their behalf. There was some damage to the carpets in the downstairs flat at the end of the tenancy and the landlords gave the tenants a 90 day notice to leave the upstairs flat. Four applications have been filed relating to both tenancies. The questions I have to decide include: • Were the tenants responsible for damage to the carpet in the downstairs flat? • Did the landlords end the tenancy without grounds? • Did the landlords comply with the requirement to provide information about insurance? • Did the landlords fail to provide a tenancy agreement for the upstairs flat? • Can I allow costs?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the carpets in the downstairs flat?

The tenants accept that their cat had urinated on the lounge carpets. This had obviously happened over time and was worse around the perimeter of the room, where the tenants had boxes and furniture. The tenants said they had no idea the cat had caused damage because they had litter boxes inside which they changed daily. They said they were shocked when they moved out and noticed an odour in the lounge. They have agreed to reimburse the insurance excess for the lounge.
I am persuaded by the tenants’ evidence. It seems most likely to me there was a lack of care rather than intentional damage. I am not persuaded the tenants deliberately hid the damage from the agent who carried out inspections.
The landlords have also claimed the insurance excess for three other rooms because the agent said he found cat urine in the two bedrooms and in the hall. He removed all the carpets and the smooth edge and liaised with Chemdry to have the floor boards treated. The insurer paid for new carpet. The tenants do not agree the cat damaged the carpet in these rooms.
This is the landlords’ claim to prove. The landlords must prove that the tenants caused damage to the three other rooms during the tenancy. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 3
The landlords provided the report from Chemdry which was produced for the insurer. The report, called “Initial Visit Report” is not clearly written. The only place that mentions a cat is under the heading “Job Details & SM WO Details”. That paragraph records: [Agent] will meet you on site [phone number] ACCESS parking in drive infront of garage. [Agent] will meet you there, a few easy steps to the door (6?) Cat issue throughout including wardrobes. [Agent] is [Owner’s’] maintenance person and he has taken out all carpet and underlay, smoothedge, skirtings and will also cut walls where necessary so base plates can also be cleaned and sanitised/purted.
There is also this:
It is not clear to me whether “(6?) Cat issue throughout including wardrobes” is part of the instructions given by the landlords, or part of the report of what Chemdry found. Likewise the “Job Information” could be part of the instructions rather than a finding. I find I cannot rely on the Chemdry report.
The insurer did pay for new carpet but I have not been provided with any emails or reports about the claim, so there is no supporting evidence for the landlords’ verbal submissions that there was cat damage in the other rooms.
The only person who saw the damaged carpets in the rest of the flat was the agent. He took photos. At the hearing the tenants established that the photos showing damaged carpet in the bedrooms were actually photos of the lounge carpet. This means I have not been provided with any photos of the damaged carpet in the bedrooms or the hall.
The agent gave evidence as a witness. He recalled finding the damage and the process he followed to remediate and facilitate the installation of new carpet. He said the man from Chemdry could identify salt crystals in the rooms which proved there was cat urine present. This is not mentioned in the Chemdry report. The agent also conceded that an inspection dated July 2024 – which mentions concerns about the cat – could not be correct because that inspection was cancelled. Consequently I do not find the agent’s evidence to be reliable.
The landlord has not provided better evidence than the tenants. The claim for the excesses for the bedrooms and the hallway is dismissed.
The tenants also brought a claim that the landlord demanded payment of an amount that exceeded their liability for careless damage. I read all the documents including the emails and the claim was not proved on the evidence provided. This claim was dismissed at the hearing. 4

Did the landlords give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

The tenants claim that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA, which provides that a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlords agreed that on 4 March 2025 the agent gave the tenants 48 hours notice to leave the upstairs flat. Two days later he extended the 48 hours to five days. On 9 March, after talking with the tenants, the landlords agreed the tenants could stay in the upstairs flat for 90 days. A valid 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy was served on 11 March. There is no provision in the RTA which allows a landlord to give verbal notice to a tenancy with two or five days notice. See section 51 RTA.
I find the landlords 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) RTA.
The landlords said the agent gave notice as a knee jerk reaction after he found out there was damage to the carpets in the downstairs flat. He was not acting on instructions. Nonetheless the landlords are responsible for the actions of their agent. I find the agent acted intentionally and there was no reasonable excuse. The effect for the tenants was shock and stress. They spent six days getting legal advice and considering their options. It is in tenants interests that landlords follow the rules for giving notice. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance with the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $1,625. This at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders for the same breach, and because the tenants did not have to move out until after a valid notice was given. Did the landlords comply with the requirement to provide information about insurance?
The tenants claim the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises. Tenants can request landlords to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenants liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the 5 information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) RTA.
I note that the insurance information the tenants requested related to the downstairs flat and they asked for it after the downstairs tenancy ended. I find there are no grounds for this claim because the requirement to provide information only applies during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords fail to provide a tenancy agreement for the upstairs flat?

The tenants claim the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement for the upstairs flat was in writing and/or did not provide a copy to the tenant. Section 13 RTA provides that landlords must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed, and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The agent facilitated the tenants move to the upstairs flat. He did not provide a tenancy agreement before the tenancy started. The landlords said he acted without their knowledge and they provided a written tenancy agreement about a month later, when they were back from holiday. It seems most likely to me the tenants considered the agent to have the authority to act on behalf of the landlords. This means the landlords are responsible for the actions of the agent. I find the landlords have committed an unlawful act because they did not provide a tenancy agreement before the start of the tenancy.
The same considerations apply for exemplary damages. The landlords said there was no intention, but the agent intended to start a tenancy without a written tenancy agreement. The effect for the tenants was they believed they could be forced to move out at short notice because there was no tenancy agreement. It is in tenants interests that landlords disclose the details of the tenancy before the tenancy starts, so tenants can make informed choices. There is public interest in a penalty when landlords ignore the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $250 which is at the lower end of the scale for the same reasons.
I note that the tenancy agreement provided for both tenancies contained many clauses which were contrary to the tenants’ rights under the RTA. This is a breach of section 137 RTA, which prohibits agreements which contravene the provisions of the RTA or evade, defeat, or prevent the operation of the RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800. See section 137 and Schedule 1A RTA. 6
The tenants have not made a claim for breaches of the tenancy agreement. If they had I would have awarded more exemplary damages against the landlords. The landlords should take this opportunity to get legal advice about how to manage their current tenancies which have been contracted using the same tenancy agreement.

Can I order costs?

The landlords have claimed their travel costs to attend the hearing and the agent’s time for attending the hearing. This claim was dismissed at the hearing. Section 102 RTA only allows me to consider costs when a party has been legally represented, when the claim against them is vexatious, or should have settled at mediation. These applications do not fit within the exceptions. Other orders
The bond is refunded in full to the tenants. A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have made an application for suppression. This is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlords’ names are published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192151 — Exemplary damages at 82/84 Collier Avenue, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192151 — Exemplary damages at 82/84 Collier Avenue, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the carpets in the downstairs flat?

Did the landlords give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlords fail to provide a tenancy agreement for the upstairs flat?

Can I order costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the carpets in the downstairs flat?

Did the landlords give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlords fail to provide a tenancy agreement for the upstairs flat?

Can I order costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions