What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301993 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 5301993?

Property Damage: $5,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301993?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12326236-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301993 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 5301993?

Property Damage: $5,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301993?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12326236-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6 Crown Street, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301993 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301993 — net $5,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$5,100.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,128.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301993 — net $5,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$5,100.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,128.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
By agreement the tenancy at 6 Crown Street North East Valley Dunedin may be ended before 31/12/2025 by [the tenant/s] giving 7 written days notice of termination to Colmeia Limited.
Colmeia Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $5,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The amount awarded in 3 above may be deducted by [the tenant/s] from the weekly rent owing for the premises.
If the tenancy ends before the full amount owing is used for rent, then the balance shall be immediately paid to [the tenant/s] by Colmeia Limited.

Reasons

The tenants and landlord all attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] claim compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord failing to lodge the bond, not telling them the premises were on the market, and breaching the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition and healthy homes standards.
The fixed term tenancy commenced on 25/10/2024 at $490.00 per week until 31/12/2024.
The fixed term was renewed from 1/1/2025 to 31/12/2025 at an increased rent per week of $850.00.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenants submitted that they paid the bond of $1,960.00 to the landlord on 24/10/2024.
It was not until the dispute arose in June 2025 between the parties that they became aware the Bond had not been lodged and communicated with the landlord about the issue. The landlord lodged the bond on 30/6/2025.
The landlord did not dispute he had failed to lodge the bond. He suggested that he was unaware he needed to do so, being a “first time” landlord.
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.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond within the required timeframe.

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations to provide and maintain the premises and comply with healthy homes standards, in particular for draught stopping, ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage.
The tenants submitted the following: a. they received confusing messages about whether they could use the three fireplaces, which were not blocked off, b. several windows could not be opened because they were either nailed or painted shut and the strings had broken, c. there was a draught through the broken lounge window which took 8 months to fix, d. there was a major leak in the kitchen ceiling and mould on bedroom, hallway and kitchen ceilings, e. the back yard floods, f. the heat pump in the lounge only heated that room and the kitchen.
In response, the landlord submitted: a. The fireplaces were functional and it was not until the mediation in July that the landlord discovered the tenants did not wish to use them so he had them blocked up. b. The issue of unopenable windows was not communicated by the tenants until June 2025. A builder had subsequently fixed the paint issue in four windows and nails in two, c. A builder had also replaced the rotten lounge window in June, d. A plumber had attended to the leak in the kitchen ceiling caused by a pipe becoming detached from a water tank in the ceiling; the marks on the metal ceilings were rust not mould, e. The landlord had not heard from the tenants after he sent a plumber to look at the issue of the wet back yard, f. The heat pump in the lounge was 4.7kw, more than the required 3.9kw.
Further the landlord suggested he undertook repairs as soon as he was made aware of any issues, including replacing weatherboards and rotten frames.
The landlord believed the premises complied with healthy homes standards as at 22/8/2024.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), 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: a. For private rentals i. 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. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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 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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
I find the evidence supports that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord does not dispute that six windows were unable to be opened at the beginning of the tenancy, nor that the lounge window was cracked.
Further, some external cladding required replacement.
In addition, I consider the landlord failed to comply with healthy homes standards for draught stopping due to the cracked window and moisture ingress and drainage.
The photograph provided by the tenants shows a drainage pipe connected to the guttering stopping approximately a metre from the ground rather than draining into a sump, which likely accounted for at least some of the dampness issues.
The landlord has committed unlawful acts by failing to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Further, the landlord has failed to comply with healthy homes standards for draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage.

Did the landlord fail to advise the tenant the property was on the market?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by not telling them the premises were advertised for sale.
The tenants submitted they only became aware the landlord was selling when he sent them a text asking if he could show a friend around.
Subsequently the tenants said they discovered the property was advertised on Trade Me.
On the other hand, the landlord did not dispute that he advertised the property for sale but suggested he did so to “test the market” as he had a friend who was interested in purchasing the property.
The landlord submitted he did not know he had to tell the tenants if the property was for sale.
Under section 47, a landlord must give written notice to the tenants, immediately if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants if the house is on the market.
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 $1800.00 See section 47(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to advise the tenants that the property was on the market.
I find Colmeia Limited committed an unlawful act.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
An award of exemplary damages is made at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved, as in this case, that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. In making an award I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
The first of these is the intent of the landlord.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001)
The District Court has generally rejected a landlord pleading confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations to supply Healthy Homes Standards documents and insurance details, the Court held: “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 the consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I consider the landlord acted intentionally in failing to lodge the bond or tell the tenants about selling the property.
By his own admission the landlord knew about healthy homes standards and suggested that he carefully consulted the Tenancy Services website when he filled out the healthy homes compliance standards certificate attached to the tenancy agreement.
It is difficult to reconcile the evidence of the landlord that he knew enough about the law to consult the website about healthy homes but was unaware of other obligations.
The effect of the unlawful act has been that the landlord has held $1,960.00 for 8 months. This has meant a loss of income for the Bond Centre.
Bonds are tenants’ money, and it is not open to the landlord to do what he wanted with the funds, even if as he suggested he was ignorant of the law.
The amount of bond is significant and the concerns of the tenants such that they have diligently pursued the issue of non-lodgement.
The legislation provides for bond money to be used for dispute resolution procedures under the Act. Non-lodgement of bonds is a loss and against the tenants and public interest.
By not advising the tenants the property was for sale until he wanted to show around a prospective purchaser the landlord caused unnecessary stress to the tenants.
The rights and obligations of landlords are freely available and accessible through the Tenancy Services website.
Failure to comply with these obligations is of significant interest to tenants and the Public, in particular when premises are not well maintained or fail healthy homes standards compliance.
The renting of premises is a business. Landlords have obligations under the legislation and need to comply with all of these.
Tenants have rights under the legislation which landlords should not ignore.
I have carefully considered the evidence provided by both parties, who have both clearly been significantly adversely affected by the dispute between them.
Having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the tenant and the public interest, I consider it would be just to award exemplary damages at the mid-range of the scale for each breach. I have set these at $5,100.00.
As [the tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant because they were successful with the proceedings.
No suppression is available to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301993 — Exemplary damages at 6 Crown Street, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301993 — Exemplary damages at 6 Crown Street, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

Did the landlord fail to advise the tenant the property was on the market?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

Did the landlord fail to advise the tenant the property was on the market?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions