What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303671 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 5303671?

2025 To: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- f…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $5,057.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $262.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303671?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12388453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303671 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 5303671?

2025 To: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- f…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $5,057.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $262.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303671?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12388453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303671 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303671 — net $1,091.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 February 2025	$5,057.86		Rent arrears to 25 February 2025
Rubbish removal	$262.05		Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$1,000.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Failure to maintain- flood 21 January		$200.00	Failure to maintain- flood 21 January
2025 to		$300.00	2025 to
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry- 21 February 2025		$750.00	Unlawful entry- 21 February 2025
Exemplary damages: HHS breach		$1,200.00	HHS breach
Exemplary damages: Landlord failing to comply with		$750.00	Landlord failing to comply with
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	122. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,000.00 exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) because: a.
Total award	$5,319.91	$4,228.00
Net award	$1,091.91
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,091.91

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303671 — net $1,091.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 February 2025	$5,057.86		Rent arrears to 25 February 2025
Rubbish removal	$262.05		Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$1,000.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Failure to maintain- flood 21 January		$200.00	Failure to maintain- flood 21 January
2025 to		$300.00	2025 to
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry- 21 February 2025		$750.00	Unlawful entry- 21 February 2025
Exemplary damages: HHS breach		$1,200.00	HHS breach
Exemplary damages: Landlord failing to comply with		$750.00	Landlord failing to comply with
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	122. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,000.00 exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) because: a.
Total award	$5,319.91	$4,228.00
Net award	$1,091.91
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,091.91

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenants] to pay [The landlord] $1,091.91 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,091.91 [The tenants]: $1,308.09

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants made a cross application for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The two $50.00 payments the tenants have made towards the rent arrears, made on 4 and 9 September 2025, have been accounted for in the $5,172.00 rent arrears awarded to the landlord.

Did the tenants 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 states that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and that chattels such as the hand basin plug were missing. He seeks compensation for: a. The $91.32 he spent cleaning the dust off the windowsills, marks off the walls, cleaning the fridge and the oven and various other surfaces; b. The $262.50 he spent on rubbish bags and rubbish collection; c. $146.36 for dump fees for dumping the damaged bedding; d. Road tolls for 6 trips to Omaha; e. Mileage for 6 trips to Omaha; f. Trailer hire of $85.00 for taking the damaged bedding to the tip; g. $454.25 for carpet cleaning on 7 May 2025 after the new tenants complained of an odour; h. $83.94 for the money the landlord had to reimburse the new tenants for the hire of rug doctor to try to address carpet odours themselves.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. Cleaning costs sought
The tenants provided photographs of the day their professional cleaner had finished cleaning after they had moved all their belongings out of the premise. The photograph show the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, except for the rubbish left outside to be collected. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
The landlord has not provided any photographs of the premise after the tenants’ cleaner had finished her work that proves the cleaners photographs are not a accurate representation of the property at the end of her cleaning of the house and carpets.
The landlord’s claims for carpet cleaning costs incurred almost two and a half months after the end of the tenancy cannot be causally linked to the tenants. The smell could have been from the house being shut up for that period or something else could have caused the smell that was unrelated to the tenants tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for house and carpet related cleaning costs are dismissed for lack of evidence proving his claims and because the tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”. Rubbish removal
The landlord provided photographs to support his claim for the $262.50 he spent on rubbish bags and rubbish collection. These photographs showed that after the tenancy had ended some of the rubbish the tenants had left for inorganic collection, and paid for Northland Waste to collect, had not been collected. I am satisfied Northland Waste did not collect all of the rubbish and that the landlord had to pay for the removal of the residual waste left behind by the tenants. I award the landlord the amount claimed. Trailer hire and tip fees
The landlord has claimed $146.36 for dump fees for dumping the damaged bedding along with trailer hire of $85.00 for taking the damaged bedding to the tip. The landlord has not proven that the tenants had liability for the damage to and replacement costs associated with the two queen size beds this claim relates to. Therefore, this claim is also dismissed for lack of evidence proving the claims because the landlord could not provide evidence of what the second- hand mattresses/beds looked like at the start of the tenancy. As such, I could not be satisfied the damage the landlord claimed the tenant caused to these beds during the tenancy on the balance of probabilities. Mileage and road tolls
The landlord has sought compensation for the road tolls he paid for six trips to Omaha and his milage for those six trips.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders around road tolls and mileage, this claim must be dismissed. Are the tenants’ 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 landlord states the following damage was caused by the tenants during the tenancy: a. Hole in wall in rear bedroom that required filling and painting; b. Washing line that was broken and needed replacing; c. Damaged curtains in master bedroom from cat; d. Damaged outdoor umbrella, cushions and furniture; e. Damaged carpet rug from lounge f. Damaged windowsills from cat; and g. Two second hand queen size beds that were stained beyond being able to be cleaned and required dumping and replacing.
The landlord was unable to provide receipts for the rug, umbrella and cushions as they had not been replaced, despite a new tenancy having commenced. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be compensated for losses they have suffered as a result of a breach. There is no loss when a damaged item has not been replaced. As such, these claims are dismissed for lack of evidence to prove these losses on the balance of probabilities.
The other damages have also not been proven by the landlord as he was unable to provide photographs of the items at the start of the tenancy that I could compare to the photographs from the end of the tenancy. As such, I cannot be satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy or that the tenants should be held liable for any proven damage. These claims are dismissed for lack of evidence to prove the losses on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenants be liable for break lease costs?

The parties confirmed the tenants requested their tenancy end early due to an unforeseen family health issue that meant they had to relocate to Northland to support an ill family member, in addition to their frustration with the two floods in the house caused by inadequate drainage.
The parties provided evidence the partes had agreed to the tenancy ending early, but no mention was made in the communications that the tenants would be held liable for the advertising costs or the lost rent until new tenants moved in if they ended the tenancy early.
The landlord has claimed $279.00 for the listing of the premise on trade me and $1,943.00 lost rent from 26 February to 16 March 2025.
New tenants moved into the premise in April 2025, after the premise had had some remedial work done on it to bring it back to rentable condition. The landlord has failed to provide evidence that any of this remedial work was attributable to the tenants’ breaches of their obligations under the RTA.
Additionally, there is no provision in the TA for the landlord to claim break lease fees.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his claims on the balance of probabilities. The claims are dismissed. Should the tenants be held liable for the landlord’s time to undertake the repairs/maintenance and cleaning required to bring the premise to re-rentable standard?
The landlord claims $2,250.00 for 50 hours he claims he spent cleaning the house and painting the inside of it to get it to a standard where it could be relet.
Landlords generally cannot claim for their own time spent cleaning or repairing the property after a tenancy ends. They can only claim for the cost of getting a third party to undertake cleaning or repairs for damage proven to be beyond fair wear and tear by evidence, such as a detailed property inspection report at the start and end of the tenancy that proves the tenants are responsible for cleaning and tidying to a reasonable state of cleanliness and for fixing damage the tenants or their guests caused through careless acts or omissions or intentional damage.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders around the cost of the landlord’s time to repair/maintain/clean the premise, this claim must be dismissed. Should the tenants be held liable for refilling the water tank at the end of the tenancy?
The landlord claims $287.52 for the water tank to be refilled.
The tenants say they are not responsible for this cost as it is not provided for in the tenancy agreement and the plumbers that fixed the drainage issues that caused the flooding used a lot of water during the remediation process.
Tenants are generally responsible for arranging and paying for water tank refills at the end of their tenancy, but this is contingent on this being a term of their tenancy agreement.
There is no provision in the tenancy agreement that addresses who is responsible for filling the water tank at the end of the tenancy from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders around the cost of refilling the water tank and I accept the tenants claim the plumbers used significant amounts of water flushing pipes and cutting concrete, this claim must be dismissed.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) or (bb) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to them.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 3
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 4 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 5 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 6 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 7 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages/compensation may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.

Did the landlord failure to maintain the premise?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 6 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Specifically, the tenants claim that on 21 January 2025, the drainage system failed and wastewater flooded the second lounge.
The parties agree that the landlord addressed the issue promptly and that it was remedied in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
The landlord arranged for a plumber to undertake a temporary fix the same day and a permanent fix 10 to 14 days after that. The carpet was ripped up the same day as the flood and placed outside initially. It was removed from the premise a week later. A hole was made in the wall to track the pipes that caused the issue and a hole made in the floor where the leaking pipes were located. Commercial fans were used to dry out the wall and the floor for around four days.
I accept the tenants experienced a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience as a result of the flood and while the repairs were being undertaken, I do not consider the landlord to have failed to repair and maintain the premise to a reasonable standard in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
As such, I am satisfied that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
However, I award the tenants compensation of $100.00 per week for the two weeks it took to fully remediate the flooding/drainage issue, being a total compensation of $200.00. This compensation recognises the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants over this 14 day period from 21 January 2025 to 4 February 2025. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider 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 tenancy agreement commenced on 16 June 2024. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 120th day after the tenancy commenced, being Monday, 14 October 2024.
The tenants do not believe the rental premise ever fully met the moisture and drainage healthy homes standard and as the tenancy agreement did not contain any of the required healthy homes information it is statutorily required to contain, the tenants had no information about where the premise was in terms of level of compliance when the tenancy commenced. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 tenant raised this issue with the landlord on 21 January 2025 and again on 26 February 2025 when two drainage related floods occurred in the second lounge and then the kitchen.
The tenants have provided evidence the second lounge ad bedroom used to be a carport and the pipe that flooded the second lounge was a wastewater pipe that should have been outside of the premise and not running though it. This change to the drainage was never undertaken when the carport conversion was done. The plumber informed the tenants the second leak in the kitchen was linked to the original lounge leak and that the drainage needed addressing more fully. They say this plumber is a local businessman and that he did not want to put this in writing for the tenants for fear he would not get further work in the area.
The landlord claims the plumber that undertook the remedial work and did not say it was non-compliant to healthy homes requirements and said the landlord could leave it as is but could improve it. The landlord chose to improve it.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act, he should have reasonably known about the requirement to meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard by 14 October 2024 and took no steps to hire a third party to undertake a healthy homes assessment and report nor did he undertake any due diligence about any potential drainage issues resulting from carport conversion when he purchased the premise or to ensure it met this standard until after the leaks were remediated.
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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the landlord’s breach was intentional and that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. Because: a. I consider the landlord did nothing to assess whether the premise was HHS compliant by 14 October 2024; b. The effect for the tenants was that their dwelling flooded with waste water during the tenancy from a pipe that should have been external to the premise and not running though it; c. The strong interest for tenants and the public generally, is that tenancies be warm and dry and free from flooding with waste water, and that is achieved by compliance with the HHS. d. In the circumstances I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
.Because I am making more than one order of exemplary damages for all breaches of section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA, I will consider the quantum to be ordered for all those breaches below. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed one intentional breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA and one of s45(1)(bb). These breaches resulted in the tenants being exposed to damp and unsanitary conditions after the wastewater leak and loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief for this loss of amenity, or the stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants.
I find the landlord has committed these unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity.
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.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,200.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being one eighth of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Did the landlord provide the tenants with the statutorily required signed healthy homes compliance statement, detailed information on the level of compliance of the premise with the healthy homes standards, an insulation statement and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under sections 13A(1CA), 13A(1A) and 13A(2) of the RTA.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA), 13A(1A) and/or s13A(2) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00 for all breaches. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Signed healthy homes compliance statement
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
The landlord does not dispute not having a signed healthy homes compliance statement in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenant’s claim is upheld. The landlord did not have any other explanation for this breach other than it must have been an oversight. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Insulation statement
The tenants claim the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord does not dispute having an insulation statement in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenant’s claim is upheld. The landlord did not have any other explanation for this breach other than it must have been an oversight. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Healthy Homes information relating to the other four standards and smoke alarm information
Section 13A(2) of the RTA also states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement smoke alarm information (the type, how many, where they are positioned, when they were last tested and when they expire) as well as information on the heating, ventilation, draught stopping, and Moisture ingress and drainage.
The landlord does not dispute failing to have this information in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenant’s claim is upheld. The landlord did not have any other explanation for this breach other than it must have been an oversight. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Insurance information
Section 13A(2) of the RTA states “the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: a. If the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and b. If the premises are insured, a statement: c. setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and d. informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or66J(5))”.
The tenant’s tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information.
The landlord accepted she did not provide this information but gave no justifiable reason for failing to do so.
I find the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages for failure to provide the statutorily required information in the tenancy agreement.
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.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and the statutorily required insurance information s13A(2) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The owner should have reasonably known it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise not knowing if it complied with the healthy homes standards and if the landlord had tenant insurance to offset the cost of any damage to the property for which the tenants may be liable. The tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise did not fully comply with the healthy homes’ standards, but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenants that the rental premises meet all the healthy homes standards and if the landlord has tenant insurance to reduce the tenants liability for potential damages to the property; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements, and statutorily required healthy homes and insurance information in compliance with the clear requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the smoke alarm regulations.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

[The tenants] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant provided photographic evidence that the landlord entered the premise without having given the statutorily required notice on 21 February 2025.
The landlord accepted he had gone to the premise on 21 February 2025 after he received a call from the neighbours to say the place was left open and looked abandoned and there was lots of rubbish out the front. The landlord claims he tried to call and message the tenants but got no response.
The tenants say they were up the road for a short time and did not have their phone on them. They were still responsible for rent and for any damage to the premise, so the landlord had no right to enter it unlawfully.
The landlord did not have to go into the premise to secure it but chose to go in and take a significant number of photographs of the premise that day as he was “concerned the property was left in that state”. He then filed them in the Tribunal, initially as proof the premise was not left in a reasonably clean state at the end of the tenancy.
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 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.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally breached his section 48(4)(a) of the RTA obligations by unlawfully entering the premise on 21 February 2025, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 of exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known it could not enter the premise without complying with the landlord right of entry provisions set out in section 48 of the RTA; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord’s breach was that their quiet enjoyment of the premise was broken and they felt like they had been violated because he had gone through the premise and photographed their property and the house when they were in the middle of moving under challenging circumstances; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s unlawful entry; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach their access rights and their obligations to tenants to give notice or get consent. If the landlord believed the premise had been abandoned, there are clear processes to be followed in the RTA that he did not follow.
The tenants breach of quiet enjoyment claim is about the same unlawful entry. The RTA does not allow me to award compensation or exemplary damaged twice under two separate head of claim about the same incident.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within 23 working days after receiving it?

[The tenants] claim 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 confirms the bond was paid to his account on 3 July 2024 and not lodged with the bond centre until 29 January 2025. This is well beyond the 23 working days provided for in the RTA.
The landlord claims he did not lodge the bond in the 23 working days because he emailed the tenants the bind lodgement form to complete and sign, using [name suppressed] email address, on 15 June 2024, 20 June 2024 and 24 June 2024 and 11 November 2024 but never received it. He says that [name suppressed] responded to his 24 June 2024 email on 25 June 2024 saying that he had forwarded it to his father-in-law for printing and would complete it and send back and would also pay the bond. The bond was paid on 3 July 2024 but the landlord never received the completed bond lodgement form.
The tenants asked why he sent the requests to [name suppressed] email address when the address for service on the tenancy agreement is that of [name suppressed]. The landlord stated that he had used the email address the tenants had used to inquire abut the tenancy and to negotiate the terms of the tenancy.
The tenants also asked why the landlord did not bring the form for them to sign when he completed the property inspection on 9 November 2024. The landlord stated he did not think of it and that in between email requests it slipped his mind.
The landlord finally lodged the bond on 29 January 2025 when he could do so electronically without a signed form because of recent changes to that process.
I find the landlord did not take all reasonably practicable steps to send the bond lodgement form to the tenants written address for service nor to take a printed copy to them to sign when he undertook the property inspections. Therefore, I find he has 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.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,000.00 exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre in the statutorily required timeframe and did not take reasonable steps to get the signed bond lodgement for so he could meet his obligations under s1992) of the RTA; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenants’ benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants’ money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for most of the duration of the tenancy, and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties’ interests.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because [The respondent] has not wholly or substantially succeeded with his claims his application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants’ apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the tenants’ conduct.
Non-publication of the tenants’ name and identifying details is ordered.
The landlord applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in his proceedings. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303671 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303671 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

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

Should the tenants be liable for break lease costs?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord failure to maintain the premise?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within 23 working days after receiving it?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

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

Should the tenants be liable for break lease costs?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord failure to maintain the premise?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premise?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within 23 working days after receiving it?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions