What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5205054 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 5205054?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205054?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12400177-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5205054 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 5205054?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205054?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12400177-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Rathgar Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5205054 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Chnz Property Limited as agent for Ting Sun must pay [the tenants] $3,441.29 immediately on the basis of the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were assisted by a representative from a local budgeting service and an interpreter attended to provide interpretation as required. The landlord was represented by Pim Pimpinid.
The tenants arrived in New Zealand as refugees. The tenancy was arranged by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on the basis that: a. The tenancy would be between the landlord and the tenants directly; b. MBIE would pay the bond on behalf of the tenants; c. MBIE would pay all rent payments directly to the landlord on behalf of the tenants until the tenants had obtained New Zealand residency and qualified for support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).
The landlord seeks rent arrears in the amount of $1,645.71 owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks refund of their bond in the amount of $2,500, exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to keep records and lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain/breach of Healthy Homes Standards. Onus and evidence
Each party bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
A large amount of evidence was filed in this matter. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and given at the hearing, but the parties should be assured that I have carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence in making this decision. Background
The tenancy began on 19 August 2022 and ended on 5 August 2024 after the tenants gave notice to the landlord. The tenants accepted a tenancy with Kainga Ora that several weeks before the end of the notice period and did not realise that their rent payments would be automatically redirected to their new tenancy.
As a result rent was in arrears in the amount of $1,645.71 at the end of the tenancy. Both tenants accepted (at least initially) that this sum was owing for rent and said that the landlord could deduct the rent owing from their bond.
Difficulties arose however when the landlord discovered that they had never lodged the bond. The landlord says that on reviewing their records they discovered that the bond payment was mistakenly applied to rent arrears that occurred in October 2022 and so was never lodged.
The landlord explained that when the bond was paid for this tenancy their office manager was away, and when she returned she was not sure what the bond payment was for and so it was paid into a holding account. When she later queried the payment internally she found that the rent was in arrears and so applied bond payment to rent arrears.
The landlord says that that they are entitled to rent arrears from the tenants directly in the amount of $1,645.71 as there is no bond held.
The tenants say that MBIE paid the bond on their behalf and that they had always understood that the bond was held at the Bond Centre. They say that they were never advised of any rent arrears and had no idea that their bond had been applied to rent arrears. They said that when they took over their tenancy they had understood everything had been sorted out, all they had to do was to continue to pay rent, and that they would receive their bond back at the end of the tenancy.
I have carefully reviewed all of the evidence filed by the landlord and tenant together with correspondence between the parties. The evidence shows that: a. The landlord initially communicated directly with MBIE regarding payments owing for the tenancy. b. MBIE paid the bond of $2560.00 direct to the landlord on 25 August 2022. c. The landlord completed a bond lodgement form and sent a copy to the tenants on 7 September 2022. d. The landlord provided MBIE with invoices for rent which were then paid by MBIE and receipted. e. The bond payment was not lodged but was instead paid into the general rent account on 1 October 2022 and incorrectly applied to rent for the four weeks commencing 7 October 2022. f. The landlord did not invoice the landlord for rent for the period 7 to 27 October 2022. g. MBIE contacted the landlord on 25 October 2022 to say that the tenants’ payments would be made by the MSD from now on and asked whether there was any outstanding rent. h. The landlord responded to MBIE the same day to say that rent was up to date. i. The tenants continued to pay rent which (was re-directed to the landlord directly by WINZ) and continued weekly payments until these payments were redirected to their new tenancy.

How much is owing for rent?

The landlord is entitled to rent in the sum of $1,645.71 for the period 19 July 2024 to 5 August 2024 as the tenants did not pay rent for the final two weeks and four days of the tenancy as their WINZ payments had been redirected.
The landlord provided a rent summary proving the amount owed. This claim is proved. What happened to the tenants’ bond?
The tenants paid a bond (through MBIE) on 25 August 2022. 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.
The bond should have been lodged in accordance with the RTA. There was no basis on which the landlord was entitled to apply the bond to rent arrears as the rent was not in arrears on the date the bond was paid.
I find that the landlord continues to nominally hold the sum of $2,560 as a bond for the tenant 1 .
The balance of bond of $914.29 (after deduction of rent owing in the amount of $1,645.71) is to be paid to the tenants.

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages?

The landlord should have paid the tenants’ bond to the Bond Centre 23 working days after 25 August 2022 but did not do so and instead kept the bond in a separate account and then applied the bond to rent arrears.
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 has failed to lodge the bond as required and has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The obligation to lodge the bond is so fundamental that a failure to do so will almost always be regarded as intentional. For this reason most property management companies will have systems in place to correctly allocate bond payments and to alert them if the statutory time frame for lodging the bond is drawing close.
The bond is the tenant’s money, whether they have paid the bond directly or it has been paid on their behalf. The landlord’s failure to lodge the bond has caused considerable stress to these tenants who are new to New Zealand and 1 The landlord cannot now recover the any rent from the tenants that they failed to invoice MBIE for in 2022 as they waived their right to that rent when they told MBIE at the handover point that the rent was up to date (alternatively they are estopped from now claiming rent from the tenants for that period as they told MBIE that rent was up to date and the tenants took over payments in reliance on that statement). trying to rebuild their lives. It is in the public interest to ensure that bond paid by tenants are appropriately protected.
It is usual in the Tribunal for award approximately 1/3 of the maximum prescribed amount of exemplary damages on the first occasion that a landlord commits an unlawful act. I therefore award exemplary damages in the amount of $500.00.
The tenants also sought exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to keep records for rent and bond as required under section 30(1) RTA. The landlord does appear to have kept records but has incorrectly applied the bond to rent.
I acknowledge that the tenants (and their representative) had had to spend considerable time and energy attempting to work out what has occurred here.
However I do not consider that another award of exemplary damages is appropriate as the failure to keep proper records has led to the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, and exemplary damages have already been awarded 2 .

Has the landlord breached their maintenance/Healthy Homes obligations?

Landlords have an obligation under section 45 RTA to: a. Provide and maintain the tenancy property in a reasonable state of repair; and b. Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) which include heating, drainage, ventilation and draught stopping.
The tenants said that there were ongoing issues with mould throughout the tenancy. The tenants said that they arranged for a Healthy Homes Assessment Report from Habitat for Humanity on 7 November 2023 which found that the underfloor insulation was too thin, the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were too week, that the property was in a flood zone area and mould kept coming back, and that there were draughts due to gaps in doors and windows.
The tenants’ report identified a roof leak and noted as follows: “Roof collapse near bedroom fixed with tape”.
The tenants said that the mould and damp was a particular concern and they were worried about the health of their four children.
The tenants produced photos of the mould which appears to be fairly extensive, covering a large portion of the ceiling and in patches along the walls and on the tenant’s belongings. 2 Only one award of exemplary damages should be made for the same “event”. See Manage My Rental Limited v Baxter [2015] NZDC 12011. I consider that the landlord’s administrative failings led to the bond being applied to rent and so are essentially the same event.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes compliance statement dated 3 August 2021 and produced a copy of an email showing that they had provided MBIE with a copy of the report in July 2022 prior to the start of the tenancy 3 .
The report confirms the property to be Healthy Homes compliant.
The landlord acknowledged that a leak had occurred at the property during the tenancy. The landlord said that the tenants first raised mould as an issue at the inspection in April 2023 (in bedroom 1) but the landlord thought the mould was most likely due to the tenants not ventilating the property properly and asked them to keep an eye on things. It was not until the next inspection in August 2023 that the landlord discovered that mould had also spread to bedroom 3 that they took action.
The landlord engaged a contractor who attended in October 2023. The landlord provided an invoice from their contractor dated 6 November 2023 which stated “Bedroom1 and 3 roof leaking inspection and repair” and included a narration of $450.00 plus GST for the repair.
The landlord said that the leaks were identified and fixed as soon as it was clear that there was a maintenance issue. They said that they were not provided with a copy of the tenants Healthy Homes report until February 2024.
The tenants said that the repair to the roof was not adequate and did not solve the mould issue. They noted that their Healthy Homes inspection took place on 7 November 2024, after the landlord claims to have fixed the issue. Analysis
I note that the two Healthy Homes reports come to different conclusions but I am not persuaded to accept the tenants’ report over the landlord’s report. The landlord’s report contains specific details of the kitchen and bathroom exhaust capacity and R values for the insulation. The tenant’s report is more general and focusses on a range of issues such as hot water temperature that are not strictly in regard to Healthy Homes compliance. I note that the photo of the underfloor insulation in the tenant’s report does show that the insulation has the correct R value 4 .
I do not consider that the tenants have proved that the landlord has breached their Healthy Homes obligations.
The landlord must also comply with their maintenance obligations however. Having reviewed all of the evidence I consider that the landlord has breached their maintenance obligations because: 3 The landlord has since obtained a further Healthy Homes report dated 7 July 2025 but I regard that report was only marginally relevant as it was obtained well after the tenancy ended. 4 Although I note that in some places the insulation had come away at the date the photos were taken a. They took a “wait and see” approach at the April 2023 inspection and did not investigate despite the tenants’ concerns; b. It should have been clear by the second inspection in August 2023 that the mould issue was due to something more serious than a lack of ventilation; c. The cause of the damp and mould was not investigated and repaired until October 2023; and d. The repair by the landlord does not appear to have been adequate and mould was an ongoing issue.
As a result of the landlord’s breach the tenants were living in a property where two of the bedrooms became damp and mouldy due to the landlord’s failure to maintain.
I consider that the tenants are entitled to some compensation for loss of amenity. It is not possible to be precise when calculating lack of amenity as the issue began in one bedroom and later another bedroom was affected.
However, standing back and considering the amenity value of the property as a whole, the extent of the issues experienced, the rental paid, the communication between the parties and the steps taken by the landlord, I consider compensation in the amount of $2,000 to be appropriate. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded in their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants are the substantially successful party and are entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205054 — State of repair at 22 Rathgar Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205054 — State of repair at 22 Rathgar Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

Order

Reasons

How much is owing for rent?

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages?

Has the landlord breached their maintenance/Healthy Homes obligations?

Order

Reasons

How much is owing for rent?

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages?

Has the landlord breached their maintenance/Healthy Homes obligations?