How much money was awarded in case 5281945?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $880.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281945?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281945?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12169642-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5281945?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $880.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281945?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281945?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12169642-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

110B Gossamer Drive, Pakuranga Heights, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5281945 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5281945 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5281945 — net $780.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$880.00		Rent arrears
Repairs: Carpet	$800.00		Repairs: Carpet
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$500.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Section 45 - heating		$400.00	Section 45 - heating
Total award	$1,680.00	$900.00
Net award	$780.00
Bond	$880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$780.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $780.00 [The tenant/s]: $100.00

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy began on 26 October 2024 and was fixed for a six-month period and therefore due to end on 26 April 2025.

The landlord had incorrectly used a boarding house tenancy agreement, but this was not a boarding house tenancy.

The tenant applied for refund of the bond, a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, compensation, and exemplary damages.

The landlord applied for rent arrears and compensation due to damages. Tenant application

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”).

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.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy as it commenced between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 it must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards within 120 days from the start of the tenancy.

The tenant claims that the premises did not comply in relation to heating.

The landlord acknowledged that before the tenancy commenced the heater fixed to the wall was removed and was not replaced during the tenancy. 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.

At the hearing the landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 3 May 2025. By that date the premises were compliant with the Healthy Homes standards.

But during the tenancy the premises did not comply in relation to heating. The tenant says that he had just arrived in New Zealand from a tropical climate (Fiji) so even though it was October he felt cold. The landlord claims that the tenancy was only during the summer months.

The regulations do not differentiate between winter and summer months. The premises should have complied with the Healthy Homes by 23 February 2025 (120 days after 26 October 2024).

The landlord was aware that the premises did not have a heater. She also stated that she has other tenancies and therefore should be aware of the regulations. I accept that this had some impact on the tenant. It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with the legislation in relation to Healthy Homes. I consider that an award for exemplary damages of $400.00 is reasonable.

The tenant’s application referred to water leaks, ventilation, and smoke alarms.

There was insufficient evidence to establish that there were water leaks and even if there were this is not one of the standards set out by the Healthy Homes regulations.

In relation to ventilation, the Healthy Homes report confirms that the premises comply in relation to natural and mechanical ventilation. Even though the report was obtained after the tenancy ended there is no evidence to suggest that these were not working during the tenancy. I note that in relation to the rangehood, the tenant said it worked on high but not on low. He also said that they only used it once.

In relation to smoke alarms there was conflicting evidence between the parties. The tenant said that the landlord removed the two smoke alarms on 1 November 2024 because they were beeping, and they were never replaced. He said that he verbally asked for these to be replaced but there is no written record of such a request. I accept the landlord’s evidence that as she and her children were living in the upstairs area, she would not remove the smoke alarms without replacing them.

On the evidence produced I am not able to conclude that the landlord did not comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. I note that the Healthy Homes report confirms that the premises complied in relation to smoke alarms.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

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.

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 did not lodge the bond until 27 June 2025, eight months after the bond was received. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

The landlord said that she did not lodge the bond because she incorrectly thought that this was a boarding house tenancy. However, even if it were a boarding house tenancy the bond should be lodged unless it is equivalent to one week’s rent or less (see section 66D(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord’s failure to lodge the bond caused issues at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that she had other tenancies and therefore should know better that a bond should be lodged. The landlord only lodged the bond two months after the tenant applied to the Tribunal. It is in the public interest for landlords to lodge bonds. I consider that an award for exemplary damages of $500.00 is reasonable.

At the hearing the tenant claimed that the premises are unlawful residential premises. There was no evidence produced to support that claim and therefore it is dismissed. Landlord application

The landlord produced a rent summary which shows the rent arrears owed at the end of the tenancy. While the tenant moved out two weeks early this was a fixed term tenancy, and the tenant is liable for rent up until the end of the fixed term or until the start of a new tenancy.

The tenant claimed that a new tenant moved in two days after he moved out, but the evidence was not compelling.

I have awarded two weeks rent as sought by the landlord.

The landlord claimed for replacement of the carpet that was damaged by the tenant. The tenant accepted that they caused burn marks on the carpet in the lounge area.

After the tenancy ended the landlord obtained three quotes to replace the carpet. These quotes were provided to the tenant. For these proceedings the landlord provided another quote which was about double the amount of the three quotes. The reason for this was because the carpet company could not match the carpet in the bedroom and therefore the landlord claimed replacement for all the carpet in the two rooms.

At the hearing the landlord said that the carpet was new and only installed last year. After the hearing concluded the landlord sent correspondence claiming that the carpet was installed in 2010. That is a difference of 14 years. Therefore, the landlord’s evidence in relation to the age of the carpet as submitted at the hearing was not true. I note that it is not open for parties to continue to submit evidence after a hearing has concluded and therefore while I note this inaccuracy, I take no account of any evidence submitted after the hearing.

The landlord has not replaced the carpet even though a new tenancy has commenced. I accept that the burns in the carpet were caused by the tenant, and it is likely that the carpet will be replaced. I don’t accept that the tenant should be liable to replace all the carpet as the landlord made no effort to match the new carpet with the carpet she said was installed just before the tenancy commenced.

I consider that the tenant should pay $800.00 toward replacement of the carpet in the lounge and that amount is awarded.

The landlord claimed for compensation in relation to damage to a door from hooks, damage to a wall from hooks and damage to the ceiling. I am told that all this damage was only noticed after the tenants left.

The tenant acknowledged putting two hooks on the door but says that the other damage was there at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord did not produce any photographs of the door from before the tenancy. There is also no evidence that the hooks have or would cause any damage to the door because they have not been removed.

There are two hooks in the kitchen area. The white hook was there at the beginning of the tenancy and the red hook was added by the tenant. Again, there is no evidence that removal of the red hook will cause any damage.

The landlord produced close photographs of damage to the ceiling where it looks like it has been painted with paint which does not match the rest of the ceiling. The landlord produced a photograph of that room from before the tenancy commenced. There is a shadow on the ceiling in that photograph which may or may not be the damage complained of. I am not certain that this damage was caused during the tenancy and therefore the claim is dismissed.

As both parties have had some success I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of the parties as sought.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5281945 — net $780.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$880.00		Rent arrears
Repairs: Carpet	$800.00		Repairs: Carpet
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$500.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Section 45 - heating		$400.00	Section 45 - heating
Total award	$1,680.00	$900.00
Net award	$780.00
Bond	$880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$780.00