What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286963 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 5286963?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286963?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12152286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286963 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 5286963?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286963?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12152286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5286963 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286963 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – Failure tenancy agreement not in writing	$250.00	Exemplary damages – Failure tenancy agreement not in writing
Exemplary damages – Failure to provide HH compliance statement	$250.00	Exemplary damages – Failure to provide HH compliance statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for possession is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application relating to the notice to end her tenancy and the length of the tenancy is withdrawn.
Michael Charles Drought and Kerry Maree Kelly-Drought must pay [The tenant/s] $527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. Her representative made a last-minute request to attend by telephone. He had not made sufficient plans to travel after an adjournment was not granted. Parties should never assume that the Tribunal will grant adjournment requests.
I allowed the representative to attend by telephone because it was expedient and because the representative now confirmed that certain issues no longer need to be determined - thereby considerably shortening the necessary length of the hearing. The landlord’s application also no longer needed to be considered.
I note that this meant that the value of the claim fell below the $6,000 threshold as specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) (s 93(2)(b)) that enables the tenant to have a representative as of right. However, the landlords expressed that they did not have a problem with the tenant having her representative (s 93(2)(a) RTA).
The tenant’s representative confirmed that the only part of the application that the tenant wanted to pursue today was the failure to have the tenancy agreement in writing and the failure to provide healthy homes information. The tenant seeks exemplary damages in relation to this. The part of the application relating to notice and the length of the tenancy was not being pursued. The representative also sought to raise a breach in relation to the healthy homes heating standards, but this was not sufficiently detailed as part of the claim on the application filed and therefore, I did not hear this part of the application. The landlord must have sufficient notice of the claim that is bought.
The landlord made an application for possession but as the tenant has moved out this is no longer required. The landlord’s application is therefore withdrawn.

Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing?

[The tenant/s]claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing. She claims exemplary damages.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I heard that the property is owned by the landlords. Their background is in farming, but they bought the property for their retirement. After living in the property, they had to return to the farm to assist with that so the property was used as an Air BnB for just under a year. I heard how that was not working out for them and so they wanted to rent the property out.
The tenant knew of this intention as she was their friend. She stayed in the property as the landlord’s friend when in the area for a party and then she put herself forward to rent the property. I heard how it was agreed that the tenant would pay $1,000 per week and that she would have a flat mate. She moved in from August 2024 and remained there until recently when she returned possession to the landlord.
The landlord admits that they did not provide an agreement in writing. They say this was because the tenant was a friend and they mutually agreed not to do this.
While I am satisfied that a tenancy was created between the parties, the text messages provided are not sufficient so as to satisfy section 13(4) RTA.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 tenant’s representative says that the landlords not putting the agreement in writing has ultimately led to this dispute - the problem being that the tenant regarded the tenancy agreement as being a 3-5 year fixed term tenancy but the landlord did not regard it as being of that length. It is not clear whether the landlord regarded this as a one-year fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy but it is clear that they did not regard the tenancy length as that put forward by the tenant.
Relations turned sour when the landlord sought possession of the property (because the tenant thought they were entitled to remain there as part of a fixed term). This then led to the landlord giving the tenant several notices to end the tenancy and the tenant considering them not to be valid.
The landlord says that it was because the tenant was a friend and there was a mutual understanding they did not need the agreement in writing which resulted in there being no tenancy agreement.
I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally did not provide a tenancy agreement in writing.
A landlord cannot mutually agree with a tenant to contract out of the obligations set by the RTA (section 11 RTA) and agree something else.
It is in the public interest that landlords provide a written copy of a tenancy agreement to tenants at the start of the tenancy, so that both parties are aware of their rights and obligations under the tenancy agreement, and can act accordingly.
I accept that the effect on the tenant has been significant as the dispute about the length of the tenancy ultimately led to the breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship.
I consider would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $750. In this case, taking into account the above factors, I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be just.
I therefore order exemplary damages of $250.00. Did the landlord fail to provide a Healthy Homes Compliance Statement
The requirement to include or provide a Healthy Homes Compliance Statement with the tenancy agreement applies to new tenancy agreements commencing after 1 December 2020 and all written variations or renewals taking effect after 1 December 2020: s 13A(1CA) RTA.
Section 13A(1F) confirms that failure to comply with s 13(1CA) is deemed to be an unlawful act, meaning exemplary damages can be ordered. the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum amount of $750.
I heard how there was no Healthy Homes Compliance Statement, and this is not disputed by the landlord who says this is because they did not provide a tenancy agreement – so they also did not provide a compliance statement.
It is not disputed that the landlord did not provide a Healthy Homes Compliance Statement – the tenant had no healthy homes information in writing. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I must consider exemplary damages – the test is set out above and I do not repeat that again.
I find that the unlawful act was intentional.
Landlords are required to operate their business within the legislative environment that governs their business and are assumed to know the law – If it were otherwise parties could escape the need to comply with the law simply by claiming ignorance of it. Landlords must have in place the necessary checks and balances to ensure such basic landlord responsibilities are met.
As noted in TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
There is a strong interest for tenants, landlord, and the public generally, that documents associated with a tenancy are provided and are robust and accurate. The public and tenants in particular should be able to rely on landlords to comply with the legislation and when they do not the public should expect some censure. The renting of premises is a business. Landlords have obligations under the legislation and need to comply with these irrespective of their personal circumstances.
I consider would be just to make an order for exemplary damages. The maximum level of exemplary damages is $750. In this case, for the reasons set out above, I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be just and order $250. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (section 95A(1) RTA).
The tenant seeks suppression and has been substantially successful. While she did not pursue all claims in her the application, she succeeded on the claims that she pursued.
The landlord seeks suppression but has not been substantially successful - they have had awards made against them in relation to the claims that have been pursued.
Due to the success of the parties, I award the tenant suppression of her identifying details but decline to award the landlord suppression. I see no other reason to award the landlord suppression. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. The dispute before me is not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs that of the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286963 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – Failure tenancy agreement not in writing	$250.00	Exemplary damages – Failure tenancy agreement not in writing
Exemplary damages – Failure to provide HH compliance statement	$250.00	Exemplary damages – Failure to provide HH compliance statement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for possession is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application relating to the notice to end her tenancy and the length of the tenancy is withdrawn.
Michael Charles Drought and Kerry Maree Kelly-Drought must pay [The tenant/s] $527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. Her representative made a last-minute request to attend by telephone. He had not made sufficient plans to travel after an adjournment was not granted. Parties should never assume that the Tribunal will grant adjournment requests.
I allowed the representative to attend by telephone because it was expedient and because the representative now confirmed that certain issues no longer need to be determined - thereby considerably shortening the necessary length of the hearing. The landlord’s application also no longer needed to be considered.
I note that this meant that the value of the claim fell below the $6,000 threshold as specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) (s 93(2)(b)) that enables the tenant to have a representative as of right. However, the landlords expressed that they did not have a problem with the tenant having her representative (s 93(2)(a) RTA).
The tenant’s representative confirmed that the only part of the application that the tenant wanted to pursue today was the failure to have the tenancy agreement in writing and the failure to provide healthy homes information. The tenant seeks exemplary damages in relation to this. The part of the application relating to notice and the length of the tenancy was not being pursued. The representative also sought to raise a breach in relation to the healthy homes heating standards, but this was not sufficiently detailed as part of the claim on the application filed and therefore, I did not hear this part of the application. The landlord must have sufficient notice of the claim that is bought.
The landlord made an application for possession but as the tenant has moved out this is no longer required. The landlord’s application is therefore withdrawn.

Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing?

[The tenant/s]claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing. She claims exemplary damages.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I heard that the property is owned by the landlords. Their background is in farming, but they bought the property for their retirement. After living in the property, they had to return to the farm to assist with that so the property was used as an Air BnB for just under a year. I heard how that was not working out for them and so they wanted to rent the property out.
The tenant knew of this intention as she was their friend. She stayed in the property as the landlord’s friend when in the area for a party and then she put herself forward to rent the property. I heard how it was agreed that the tenant would pay $1,000 per week and that she would have a flat mate. She moved in from August 2024 and remained there until recently when she returned possession to the landlord.
The landlord admits that they did not provide an agreement in writing. They say this was because the tenant was a friend and they mutually agreed not to do this.
While I am satisfied that a tenancy was created between the parties, the text messages provided are not sufficient so as to satisfy section 13(4) RTA.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 tenant’s representative says that the landlords not putting the agreement in writing has ultimately led to this dispute - the problem being that the tenant regarded the tenancy agreement as being a 3-5 year fixed term tenancy but the landlord did not regard it as being of that length. It is not clear whether the landlord regarded this as a one-year fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy but it is clear that they did not regard the tenancy length as that put forward by the tenant.
Relations turned sour when the landlord sought possession of the property (because the tenant thought they were entitled to remain there as part of a fixed term). This then led to the landlord giving the tenant several notices to end the tenancy and the tenant considering them not to be valid.
The landlord says that it was because the tenant was a friend and there was a mutual understanding they did not need the agreement in writing which resulted in there being no tenancy agreement.
I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally did not provide a tenancy agreement in writing.
A landlord cannot mutually agree with a tenant to contract out of the obligations set by the RTA (section 11 RTA) and agree something else.
It is in the public interest that landlords provide a written copy of a tenancy agreement to tenants at the start of the tenancy, so that both parties are aware of their rights and obligations under the tenancy agreement, and can act accordingly.
I accept that the effect on the tenant has been significant as the dispute about the length of the tenancy ultimately led to the breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship.
I consider would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $750. In this case, taking into account the above factors, I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be just.
I therefore order exemplary damages of $250.00. Did the landlord fail to provide a Healthy Homes Compliance Statement
The requirement to include or provide a Healthy Homes Compliance Statement with the tenancy agreement applies to new tenancy agreements commencing after 1 December 2020 and all written variations or renewals taking effect after 1 December 2020: s 13A(1CA) RTA.
Section 13A(1F) confirms that failure to comply with s 13(1CA) is deemed to be an unlawful act, meaning exemplary damages can be ordered. the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum amount of $750.
I heard how there was no Healthy Homes Compliance Statement, and this is not disputed by the landlord who says this is because they did not provide a tenancy agreement – so they also did not provide a compliance statement.
It is not disputed that the landlord did not provide a Healthy Homes Compliance Statement – the tenant had no healthy homes information in writing. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I must consider exemplary damages – the test is set out above and I do not repeat that again.
I find that the unlawful act was intentional.
Landlords are required to operate their business within the legislative environment that governs their business and are assumed to know the law – If it were otherwise parties could escape the need to comply with the law simply by claiming ignorance of it. Landlords must have in place the necessary checks and balances to ensure such basic landlord responsibilities are met.
As noted in TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
There is a strong interest for tenants, landlord, and the public generally, that documents associated with a tenancy are provided and are robust and accurate. The public and tenants in particular should be able to rely on landlords to comply with the legislation and when they do not the public should expect some censure. The renting of premises is a business. Landlords have obligations under the legislation and need to comply with these irrespective of their personal circumstances.
I consider would be just to make an order for exemplary damages. The maximum level of exemplary damages is $750. In this case, for the reasons set out above, I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be just and order $250. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (section 95A(1) RTA).
The tenant seeks suppression and has been substantially successful. While she did not pursue all claims in her the application, she succeeded on the claims that she pursued.
The landlord seeks suppression but has not been substantially successful - they have had awards made against them in relation to the claims that have been pursued.
Due to the success of the parties, I award the tenant suppression of her identifying details but decline to award the landlord suppression. I see no other reason to award the landlord suppression. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. The dispute before me is not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs that of the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286963 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286963 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions