Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5234574 — Exemplary damages at Room 2, 2 Saker Place, Rolleston 7615
Decided 9 Jun 2025 · Published 9 Jun 2025 · Application 5234574
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Balwinder Singh and Satinder Kaur must pay [the tenant] $1,277.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The landlords’ claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both sides attended the hearing. Mr Balwinder Singh represented both landlords. Background
- The parties signed a standard Tenancy Services boarding house tenancy agreement. The tenancy was from 23 May 2024 to 23 March 2025.
- The premises were part of a five-bedroom, three-bathroom house.
- The tenant had exclusive use of a bedroom and a toilet and shared use of a bathroom and a room in which there was a sink and a bench. It is unclear what the last-mentioned room was intended to be when the house was built - possibly a pantry. I will call that room the kitchen.
- There were three other bedrooms in the premises. Two were occupied by other tenants and one was kept vacant for use by members of the landlords’ family to use from time to time.
- The landlords and their family occupied the other part of the house, including the living areas and kitchen.
- The tenants were not permitted to use the facilities in the landlords’ part of the house unless they were invited to do so.
- There were no cooking facilities in the kitchen apart from two, two burner, gas stoves. There was a window in the kitchen, but no extractor fan. The Premises
- The landlords accepted that the premises are not a boarding house. Apart from anything else, there were only 3 tenants, and a boarding house must have at least 6 tenants occupying it.
- The landlords see the situation as a house sharing arrangement. I disagree.
- The three tenants were assigned a discreet area of the house separate from the area occupied by the landlords. The tenants’ area was self-contained despite the kitchen facilities being inadequate. They did not need to use the landlords’ area and they were not allowed to do so unless the landlords invited them there.
- It follows that the tenant had a tenancy, covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), which comprised a bedroom and toilet and other facilities shared with other tenants.
- I note that because the landlords used a formal tenancy agreement, incorporating the Act, that this tenancy would be covered by the Act even if I had found that it was a boarding situation, not a tenancy.
- The landlords therefore had the obligations of a landlord under the Act including as to the bond and Healthy Homes Standards. Bond
- The parties agreed that, when the tenancy ended, the landlords were holding $250 bond from the tenant. There was an issue as to when the tenancy ended. I find it ended on the date given by the tenant in his termination notice despite the agreement referring to a shorter period of notice. If the tenant wanted to rely on that, he should have given shorter notice.
- The landlords claim $50 from the bond for cleaning. They haven’t filed an application, but I accept their informal application.
- There was some very minor cleaning needed after the tenant vacated. It was noting more than wiping a few small areas with a damp cloth. It would have taken the landlords 10 minutes. I am not willing to make any award in the circumstances.
- As well, the landlords were overseas for two and a half months when the tenancy ended. They did not have a local agent. They received photographs from another tenant and asked the tenant to do some more cleaning which he did. They cannot now expect him to pay for still more cleaning. The missed cleaning was the result of the landlords’ own breach by not appointing a local agent.
- The landlords’ claim therefore fails and they must pay the bond in full to the tenant.
- The tenant claims the landlords have not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. I note that the tenant paid bond of $500, being two weeks rent. The parties agreed that $250 would be set against rent when the tenancy ended.
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
- The landlords have not paid the bond to the Bond Centre and so 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.
- The landlords’ failure to lodge the bond was one of many landlord breaches in this case. The bond should have been lodged whatever way one looks at this case. The tenant was denied the security of the bond held by the Bond Centre and that is still the case. There should therefore be an award of exemplary damages. I find that a proportionate award of $250 is appropriate. Ventilation and Cooking
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
- In this case the tenancy should have complied with the Healthy Homes requirements within 120 days of its commencement being the end of September 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 none of which apply here.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
- There can be no doubt that the landlords were in breach of the ventilation standard in relation to the kitchen because there was no extractor fan. The landlords argued that the doors of the kitchen could be opened but that does not negate or excuse the breach. I find, therefore, that the landlords have committed an unlawful act.
- Section 45 of the Act also requires compliance with any other legislation relating to building, health and safety that apply to the premises.
- The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provide that every kitchen must be provided with adequate means to cook food baking it. Because there was no cooker in the kitchen, the landlords have committed another unlawful Act. I note as well that a gas camping stove is not suitable for indoor use.
- I regard the lack of a cooker as the more serious breach. It severely limited the tenant’s cooking options. Taking all things into consideration an appropriate award of exemplary damages for both these breaches is $750. There is no need for a separate award of compensation because I have taken account of the effect on the tenant in making this award. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
- Because the tenant has succeeded, he is entitled to the filing fee and to name suppression.