What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5232134 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 5232134?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5232134?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5232134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11882324-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5232134 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 5232134?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5232134?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5232134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11882324-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland 2104 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5232134 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5232134 — net $4,777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: s45 (1A) RTA	$2,400.00	s45 (1A) RTA
Exemplary damages: s45 (1AD) (a) RTA	$250.00	s45 (1AD) (a) RTA
Exemplary damages: s54(6) RTA	$2,100.00	s54(6) RTA
Net award	$4,777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,777.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5232134 — net $4,777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: s45 (1A) RTA	$2,400.00	s45 (1A) RTA
Exemplary damages: s45 (1AD) (a) RTA	$250.00	s45 (1AD) (a) RTA
Exemplary damages: s54(6) RTA	$2,100.00	s54(6) RTA
Net award	$4,777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,777.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
Cps Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $4,777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Exemplary damages: s45 (1A) RTA $2,400.00 Exemplary damages: s45 (1AD) (a) RTA $250.00 Exemplary damages: s54(6) RTA $2,100.00 Total award $4,777.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $4,777.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is a tenant application and landlord cross application.
The tenants are claiming that the landlord failed to maintain the property, failed to provided information on Healthy Homes standards, reimbursement of the filing fee and retaliatory notice.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 22 June 2022 and terminated on 12 February 2025.
I will deal with the landlord claims first. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS – Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant 3 to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a pre let inspection report dated 14 June 2022, and photos of walls, but no exit inspection report. I cannot determine a claim without proof to support that claim.
The landlord claimed that the fibre box was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord accepts that they never asked the tenants about the fibre box, and they have not provided proof of the existence of the fibre box nor the cost of the replacement of the box.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A) (a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B (1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Wall damage -Bathroom vanity -Damage screen door. -Damage to kitchen and bathroom vinyl.
It is for the party making the claim to provide the evidence to support it. The landlord has not provided the evidence to support the claim for the fibre box, cleaning, screen door damage, weeding and painting of the walls. Therefore, I must dismiss the landlords claim for these costs.
As the landlord has not been successful with their claim, I cannot reimburse the filing fee, nor refund any of the bond.
All the landlords’ claims are dismissed. Tenants claim
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (“RTA”).
Under section 45, a landlord must: -provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. -comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants reported to the landlord that the following issues required fixing during their tenancy: -Louvre window in the toilet would not open or close properly and caused a considerable draught in the home. Eventually after two and a half years of complaining the landlord sent around a tradesman to fix the window. The tenants had expected that the window would be replaced to allow them to open and close the toilet window. The tradesman sealed the window shut. -The window was the only source of ventilation for the toilet. The tenants asked for a proper fix of the window, but this was not done. -The windows at the property had heavy condensation and mould on them. -The guttering was in poor condition, algae and rain poured down onto the front and back porches, when it rained due to the condition of the guttering and down pipes. Gutters:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy: or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenants claim the gutters have been in a poor condition since the beginning of the tenancy. The tenants submitted photographs of the gutters which show significant rust, vegetation growing out of them and holes in the guttering and down pipes.
The tenants say they raised the issue about the state of the gutters with the landlord on a number of occasions during the tenancy. The tenants provided a text message sent to the landlord on 22 November 2024 asking when the gutters would be repaired and cleaned out. The tenants also mentioned the toilet window needed to be fixed.
The tenants told the Tribunal that the poor condition of the guttering, meant that when it rained, water would pour onto the back and front porch.
During the tenancy, the guttering issue was raised with the landlord verbally, via emails and the text message.
I find that the landlord did not repair the gutters within a reasonable timeframe after the tenants first reported the issue to them. The landlord has never sent a tradesperson to investigate or repair the gutters over the course of the 2-and-a- half-year tenancy.
I consider the delay in attending to the guttering issues to be unreasonable. Toilet louvres
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy: or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say that the louvres in the toilet could not be closed properly and caused a serious draught that made the property cold. The tenants claim the toilet is situated immediately opposite the main bedroom, and the draught from the toilet louvers caused the bedroom to be cold when sleeping in it during winter.
The tenants stated that their young child has frequently become ill due to the cold temperature in the bedroom and that they had to purchase a portable heater to warm the bedroom at night.
The tenants claim that they raised the issue about the draughtiness of the toilet louvres with the landlord soon after taking over the tenancy. The tenant submitted an email sent to the landlord on 4 July 2022 in which they raised concerns about the louver and draught. The tenant also submitted a text message sent to the landlord on 22 November 2024.
The tenants organised a tradesperson to provide a quote to replace the toilet louvers with a new window. The quote was for $2,550.00 (including GST) and was emailed to the landlord by the tenant on 20 September 2022.
The landlord decided against installing a new and engaged a tradesman to seal off the window entirely. The tenants arrived home and saw a piece of Perspex was screwed over the louvres and sealed with silicone. The tenants provided a photograph of this.
With the window sealed off there was no ventilation in the toilet at all. The tenants claims that the smell of silicone was significant and permeated the entire house.
I find that the landlord did not investigate and repair the louvres within a reasonable timeframe. The issue was first reported to the landlord in an email on 4 July 2022 and again in a text message on 22 November 2024.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that no one visited the property to investigate the issue until 6 December 2024. That is a period of almost 2 and a half years since the issue was first raised.
I find the actions of the landlord to seal off the toilet window indicate that they accepted that the louvre caused a significant draught.
I also consider that the repair job completed by the landlord was inadequate and resulted in more stress and discomfort to the tenants.
I find the landlord has breached their obligations to maintain the property to a reasonable state of repair. 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.
The landlord has an obligation to comply with the requirements of the RTA. There is a public interest in ensuring that landlords adhere to the RTA and that tenants are treated fairly and have a right to a warm and safe home.
I am granting the tenants $2400 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with their obligations under the RTA. Failure to provide documents relating to HHS.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claimed that they requested statements regarding the Healthy Homes Standards for the property. The landlord failed to provide these documents.
The landlord has breached their obligations under s45 (1AD) RTA. 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.
A landlord has an obligation to provide the information on the Healthy Homes status of the property. Particularly when the tenants have been expressing concerns about problems with the house and the potential affect on their health.
I am awarding the tenants the sum of $250.00 in exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach of their obligations under the RTA. Retaliatory Notice:
On 9 December 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 12 February 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claimed that there were issues with the property and sent emails and texts to landlord about these problems.
On 9 th December 2024, the tenants received their notice to terminate the tenancy by the landlord. The landlord said family members were moving into the property.
The timing of the landlord’s notice and the chain of events that transpired clearly point to the notice being retaliatory.
I am satisfied that the landlord was motivated at least in part, by the tenants exercising their rights under the tenancy agreement and the RTA and making valid complaints against the landlord in respect of the maintenance of the property in a timely manner.
I have reached this conclusion having considered the correspondence between the property manager and the tenants: a) The tenants sent complaints about the maintenance issues on 22 November 2024, in particular asking for the toilet window to be fixed, the guttering to be repaired and cleaning algae off the roof. b) The landlord sealed off the toilet window which the tenants consider wrong as there was no ventilation in the toilet. The tenants contacted the landlord on 6 December 2024 asking for the toilet window to be unsealed and fixed properly.
The landlord has issued a retaliatory notice on the tenants. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mrs Ali was heavily pregnant at the time they had to vacate the property. The tenancy ended on 12 February 2025, and she was due to give birth on 1 March 2025. The stress of moving and having to find a new home weeks before she gave birth was very stressful and hard on the family.
There is a strong public interest in deterring landlords from terminating a tenancy when the tenants assert their rights or make a complaint.
I find that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory. I am awarding the tenants the sum of $2100.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord breach of the RTA. Bond/suppression/filing fee:
The bond centre is to refund the bond to the tenants immediately.
Because Cps Property Management has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants have asked for suppression of their name and identifying details and as they have been successful with their claim, I am granting suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5232134 — Exemplary damages at 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5232134 — Exemplary damages at 66A Puhinui Road, Manukau, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions