What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328814 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,178.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5328814?

Compensation: Bond Refund: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328814?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13735277-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328814 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,178.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5328814?

Compensation: Bond Refund: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328814?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13735277-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 5 Onepoto Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328814 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328814 — net $2,178.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond Refund	$450.00	Bond Refund
Exemplary damages: S19 Non Lodgement of Bond	$1,000.00	S19 Non Lodgement of Bond
Exemplary damages: S45 Failure to Maintain	$500.00	S45 Failure to Maintain
Exemplary damages: S45 Healthy Homes	$200.00	S45 Healthy Homes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,178.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,178.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,178.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 24 August 2019 and concluded on 26 June 2025.
The applicant seeks: (a) return of the balance of her bond; (b) exemplary damages for the landlord's failure to lodge the bond; (c) Exemplary damages for an alleged failure to maintain the premises, namely a garage leak which occurred in 2022 and 2023, and a bathroom door lock which failed in March 2025 and was not remedied before the tenancy ended; and (d) exemplary damages in relation to the absence of an extractor fan in the kitchen, which she alleges was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.

Was the bond lodged and are exemplary damages appropriate?

The applicant states, and the respondent confirmed, that at the commencement of the tenancy he received a bond of $2,200 together with a bond lodgement form. The landlord says that he forgot to lodge the bond within the first month and that, as time passed, he saw no need to do so.
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy the tenant requested that the final week's rent of $550 be deducted from the bond and that he subsequently refunded $1,200 to her. Although the tenant initially denied receiving these amounts or consenting to this arrangement, when referred to evidence suggesting otherwise she confirmed that the balance of the bond outstanding was $450.
The landlord also says that there was a cost associated with a broken window which the tenant had agreed to pay. While there is some suggestion in the evidence that discussions took place regarding this issue, there is no evidence that any agreement was reached. The tenant states that she neither did nor does consent to any deduction from the bond for the broken window.
I am satisfied that only $450 of the bond remains unpaid to the tenant.
I understand that the landlord says he has a claim against this amount. However, s 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond, a landlord seeking any deduction must file an application setting out the counterclaim. In the absence of an application by the landlord, the Tribunal is required to release the bond to the tenant.
The tenant has also confirmed that she does not consent to the Tribunal determining the landlord's claim relating to the window in these proceedings.
Accordingly, I find that the balance of the bond owing to the tenant is $450, and I order the landlord to pay that amount to the tenant.
Section 19(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act provides that a landlord's failure to pay a bond received to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after receipt is an unlawful act.
Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act provides that a person may seek an award of exemplary damages where another person has committed an unlawful act.
The Residential Tenancies Act identifies certain breaches as unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded. This reflects a clear legislative intention to uphold minimum standards in the residential tenancy sector and to deter conduct that undermines those standards.
In Auckland City Council v Blundell, Cooke P described exemplary damages as "exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty party and others" and "punitive because they are meant to punish". Exemplary damages are therefore intended both to punish unlawful conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future.
In determining whether exemplary damages should be awarded, the Tribunal must consider the intent of the person who committed the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the person against whom it was committed, and the public interest.
I am satisfied that the intentionality requirement is met in relation to the failure to lodge the bond. The landlord acknowledged that he was aware of his obligation to lodge the bond and that, as time passed, he simply saw no need to do so.
A bond is the property of the tenant and is held on trust by the Bond Centre as security for the landlord. A tenant is entitled to have those funds securely held by the Bond Centre, particularly in circumstances such as those that have arisen here, where the landlord has retained control of the bond.
The effect of the landlord's failure is that almost a year has passed since the tenancy ended without the tenant having had access to the full amount of her bond. Although the landlord proactively refunded part of the bond which he believed was properly owing to the tenant, the failure to lodge the bond placed the tenant's money at risk and deprived her of the protections afforded by the statutory bond system.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring that tenant bonds are properly lodged and protected.
Taking the lengthy period during which the bond was not lodged as an aggravating factor, and the landlord's proactive repayment of part of the bond as a mitigating factor, I consider an award of $1,000 to be appropriate. This represents approximately two-thirds of the statutory maximum of $1,500 and falls within the upper range of the available award.
I therefore award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,000 together with the unpaid balance of the bond of $450.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property as required by section 45?

The second claim concerns an alleged breach of s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Alleged Garage leak breach
The tenant's claim relates to water ingress into the garage, which occurred on 27 March 2022, 27 January 2023, and 3 February 2023.
The tenant's position is that a hole in the garage wall allowed water to enter the garage and that the resulting flooding damaged valuable personal property. No evidence quantifying any loss or damage to those items was provided to the Tribunal.
For a claim under s 45(1)(b) to succeed, the tenant must establish that, having been notified of a maintenance issue, the landlord failed to respond reasonably.
The landlord submitted that the property is a 1960s development comprising three units built into a hillside and that the garage is situated at the lowest point of the property.
The landlord says that, each time he was notified of water ingress, the events coincided with periods of unusually severe weather. He undertook significant investigation into the cause of the problem, including CCTV inspection of drainage systems which may have contributed to the flooding.
The landlord also established that the adjoining unit owners experienced the same issue in their garages.
The landlord submitted that the hole in the wall identified by the tenant was an ordinary feature of a garage wall of this type, having originally been created to accommodate pipework, and that it was not the primary source of the water ingress.
I accept the landlord's evidence on this issue. Given the age, location, and construction of the property, and in particular the position of the garage at the lowest point of a hillside development, it is reasonably foreseeable that some water ingress may occur during significant weather events.
I further accept that the landlord responded appropriately. He undertook substantial investigation and, having confirmed that the issue affected all three garages within the development, it was reasonable in the circumstances not to undertake further remedial work.
To the extent that any personal property was damaged by water entering the garage, I consider that risk to have been reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances and that responsibility for protecting items stored on the garage floor rested with the tenant.
I also note that, following the second incident, the tenant simply cleaned the area herself and did not pursue further remedial action. Following the third incident on 3 February 2023, she requested a dehumidifier, which the landlord promptly provided. This further supports the conclusion that the landlord responded reasonably to the issue.
Accordingly, I find no breach of s 45(1)(b) in relation to the garage leak. Bathroom lock breach
The tenant states that the lock failed in March 2025. A locksmith attended, investigated the issue, and attempted to repair it. The locksmith was unable to locate a suitable replacement lock, and this information was conveyed to the landlord.
The landlord also took possession of the lock and attempted to find a replacement. He says that, because of the age of the lock, it was difficult to locate a replacement that would fit the existing opening without extensive remediation work or replacement of the door itself. As a result, the issue was never remedied, and the bathroom door remained without a functioning lock for the remainder of the tenancy.
The landlord's explanation is unacceptable. Whatever the difficulties involved, the landlord remained obliged to remedy the defect.
The tenant could reasonably expect to have a functioning lock on the bathroom door in a house shared with other occupants.
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Section 45(1A) provides that a landlord's failure to comply with s 45(1), including s 45(1)(b), is an unlawful act. Accordingly, where a breach of s 45(1)(b) is established, the Tribunal may consider whether an award of exemplary damages is appropriate.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by allowing the bathroom door to remain without a functioning lock from March 2025 until the tenancy ended on 26 June 2025.
I am also satisfied that the breach was intentional in the sense required by s 109. The landlord was aware of the issue, appreciated that the lock remained non- functional, and made a conscious decision not to undertake the work necessary to remedy it. The breach continued for the remainder of the tenancy despite the tenant's ongoing inability to secure privacy in a shared household.
The tenant was deprived of a basic amenity that she could reasonably expect to enjoy throughout the tenancy. There is a public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with their maintenance obligations and do not leave known defects unremedied for extended periods.
Given the duration of the breach and the landlord's disregard for his obligations, I consider an award of exemplary damages of $500 to be appropriate.

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Homes ventilation standard?

The final claim concerns the absence of an extractor fan in the kitchen as required by the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant says that there was no extractor fan or rangehood in the kitchen.
Because the tenancy commenced on 24 August 2019, the landlord was required to comply with the ventilation standard by 1 July 2025. That standard required an extractor fan or rangehood vented to the outside.
The landlord submitted that he did not believe compliance was required because installation would have been technically difficult due to a window occupying most of the available wall space.
I do not accept that explanation. Extractor fans and rangehoods can generally be installed in a variety of ways, including through window structures where appropriate. The evidence suggests that the landlord adopted a casual approach to his compliance obligations.
A tenant who pays rent is entitled to expect that a landlord will comply with statutory obligations and maintain the premises to the standards required by law.
I am also satisfied that the breach was intentional. The landlord was aware of the requirement to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards but chose not to undertake the work because he considered installation would be difficult. While there may have been practical challenges, those challenges did not excuse compliance.
However, I note that the period of non-compliance immediately preceding the end of the tenancy was relatively short, being just under two months. Taking that factor into account, while also recognising the public interest in ensuring compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, I consider an award of exemplary damages of $200 to be appropriate. The filing fee:
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in her application I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328814 — net $2,178.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond Refund	$450.00	Bond Refund
Exemplary damages: S19 Non Lodgement of Bond	$1,000.00	S19 Non Lodgement of Bond
Exemplary damages: S45 Failure to Maintain	$500.00	S45 Failure to Maintain
Exemplary damages: S45 Healthy Homes	$200.00	S45 Healthy Homes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,178.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,178.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,178.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 24 August 2019 and concluded on 26 June 2025.
The applicant seeks: (a) return of the balance of her bond; (b) exemplary damages for the landlord's failure to lodge the bond; (c) Exemplary damages for an alleged failure to maintain the premises, namely a garage leak which occurred in 2022 and 2023, and a bathroom door lock which failed in March 2025 and was not remedied before the tenancy ended; and (d) exemplary damages in relation to the absence of an extractor fan in the kitchen, which she alleges was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.

Was the bond lodged and are exemplary damages appropriate?

The applicant states, and the respondent confirmed, that at the commencement of the tenancy he received a bond of $2,200 together with a bond lodgement form. The landlord says that he forgot to lodge the bond within the first month and that, as time passed, he saw no need to do so.
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy the tenant requested that the final week's rent of $550 be deducted from the bond and that he subsequently refunded $1,200 to her. Although the tenant initially denied receiving these amounts or consenting to this arrangement, when referred to evidence suggesting otherwise she confirmed that the balance of the bond outstanding was $450.
The landlord also says that there was a cost associated with a broken window which the tenant had agreed to pay. While there is some suggestion in the evidence that discussions took place regarding this issue, there is no evidence that any agreement was reached. The tenant states that she neither did nor does consent to any deduction from the bond for the broken window.
I am satisfied that only $450 of the bond remains unpaid to the tenant.
I understand that the landlord says he has a claim against this amount. However, s 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond, a landlord seeking any deduction must file an application setting out the counterclaim. In the absence of an application by the landlord, the Tribunal is required to release the bond to the tenant.
The tenant has also confirmed that she does not consent to the Tribunal determining the landlord's claim relating to the window in these proceedings.
Accordingly, I find that the balance of the bond owing to the tenant is $450, and I order the landlord to pay that amount to the tenant.
Section 19(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act provides that a landlord's failure to pay a bond received to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after receipt is an unlawful act.
Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act provides that a person may seek an award of exemplary damages where another person has committed an unlawful act.
The Residential Tenancies Act identifies certain breaches as unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded. This reflects a clear legislative intention to uphold minimum standards in the residential tenancy sector and to deter conduct that undermines those standards.
In Auckland City Council v Blundell, Cooke P described exemplary damages as "exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty party and others" and "punitive because they are meant to punish". Exemplary damages are therefore intended both to punish unlawful conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future.
In determining whether exemplary damages should be awarded, the Tribunal must consider the intent of the person who committed the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the person against whom it was committed, and the public interest.
I am satisfied that the intentionality requirement is met in relation to the failure to lodge the bond. The landlord acknowledged that he was aware of his obligation to lodge the bond and that, as time passed, he simply saw no need to do so.
A bond is the property of the tenant and is held on trust by the Bond Centre as security for the landlord. A tenant is entitled to have those funds securely held by the Bond Centre, particularly in circumstances such as those that have arisen here, where the landlord has retained control of the bond.
The effect of the landlord's failure is that almost a year has passed since the tenancy ended without the tenant having had access to the full amount of her bond. Although the landlord proactively refunded part of the bond which he believed was properly owing to the tenant, the failure to lodge the bond placed the tenant's money at risk and deprived her of the protections afforded by the statutory bond system.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring that tenant bonds are properly lodged and protected.
Taking the lengthy period during which the bond was not lodged as an aggravating factor, and the landlord's proactive repayment of part of the bond as a mitigating factor, I consider an award of $1,000 to be appropriate. This represents approximately two-thirds of the statutory maximum of $1,500 and falls within the upper range of the available award.
I therefore award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,000 together with the unpaid balance of the bond of $450.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property as required by section 45?

The second claim concerns an alleged breach of s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Alleged Garage leak breach
The tenant's claim relates to water ingress into the garage, which occurred on 27 March 2022, 27 January 2023, and 3 February 2023.
The tenant's position is that a hole in the garage wall allowed water to enter the garage and that the resulting flooding damaged valuable personal property. No evidence quantifying any loss or damage to those items was provided to the Tribunal.
For a claim under s 45(1)(b) to succeed, the tenant must establish that, having been notified of a maintenance issue, the landlord failed to respond reasonably.
The landlord submitted that the property is a 1960s development comprising three units built into a hillside and that the garage is situated at the lowest point of the property.
The landlord says that, each time he was notified of water ingress, the events coincided with periods of unusually severe weather. He undertook significant investigation into the cause of the problem, including CCTV inspection of drainage systems which may have contributed to the flooding.
The landlord also established that the adjoining unit owners experienced the same issue in their garages.
The landlord submitted that the hole in the wall identified by the tenant was an ordinary feature of a garage wall of this type, having originally been created to accommodate pipework, and that it was not the primary source of the water ingress.
I accept the landlord's evidence on this issue. Given the age, location, and construction of the property, and in particular the position of the garage at the lowest point of a hillside development, it is reasonably foreseeable that some water ingress may occur during significant weather events.
I further accept that the landlord responded appropriately. He undertook substantial investigation and, having confirmed that the issue affected all three garages within the development, it was reasonable in the circumstances not to undertake further remedial work.
To the extent that any personal property was damaged by water entering the garage, I consider that risk to have been reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances and that responsibility for protecting items stored on the garage floor rested with the tenant.
I also note that, following the second incident, the tenant simply cleaned the area herself and did not pursue further remedial action. Following the third incident on 3 February 2023, she requested a dehumidifier, which the landlord promptly provided. This further supports the conclusion that the landlord responded reasonably to the issue.
Accordingly, I find no breach of s 45(1)(b) in relation to the garage leak. Bathroom lock breach
The tenant states that the lock failed in March 2025. A locksmith attended, investigated the issue, and attempted to repair it. The locksmith was unable to locate a suitable replacement lock, and this information was conveyed to the landlord.
The landlord also took possession of the lock and attempted to find a replacement. He says that, because of the age of the lock, it was difficult to locate a replacement that would fit the existing opening without extensive remediation work or replacement of the door itself. As a result, the issue was never remedied, and the bathroom door remained without a functioning lock for the remainder of the tenancy.
The landlord's explanation is unacceptable. Whatever the difficulties involved, the landlord remained obliged to remedy the defect.
The tenant could reasonably expect to have a functioning lock on the bathroom door in a house shared with other occupants.
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Section 45(1A) provides that a landlord's failure to comply with s 45(1), including s 45(1)(b), is an unlawful act. Accordingly, where a breach of s 45(1)(b) is established, the Tribunal may consider whether an award of exemplary damages is appropriate.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by allowing the bathroom door to remain without a functioning lock from March 2025 until the tenancy ended on 26 June 2025.
I am also satisfied that the breach was intentional in the sense required by s 109. The landlord was aware of the issue, appreciated that the lock remained non- functional, and made a conscious decision not to undertake the work necessary to remedy it. The breach continued for the remainder of the tenancy despite the tenant's ongoing inability to secure privacy in a shared household.
The tenant was deprived of a basic amenity that she could reasonably expect to enjoy throughout the tenancy. There is a public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with their maintenance obligations and do not leave known defects unremedied for extended periods.
Given the duration of the breach and the landlord's disregard for his obligations, I consider an award of exemplary damages of $500 to be appropriate.

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Homes ventilation standard?

The final claim concerns the absence of an extractor fan in the kitchen as required by the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant says that there was no extractor fan or rangehood in the kitchen.
Because the tenancy commenced on 24 August 2019, the landlord was required to comply with the ventilation standard by 1 July 2025. That standard required an extractor fan or rangehood vented to the outside.
The landlord submitted that he did not believe compliance was required because installation would have been technically difficult due to a window occupying most of the available wall space.
I do not accept that explanation. Extractor fans and rangehoods can generally be installed in a variety of ways, including through window structures where appropriate. The evidence suggests that the landlord adopted a casual approach to his compliance obligations.
A tenant who pays rent is entitled to expect that a landlord will comply with statutory obligations and maintain the premises to the standards required by law.
I am also satisfied that the breach was intentional. The landlord was aware of the requirement to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards but chose not to undertake the work because he considered installation would be difficult. While there may have been practical challenges, those challenges did not excuse compliance.
However, I note that the period of non-compliance immediately preceding the end of the tenancy was relatively short, being just under two months. Taking that factor into account, while also recognising the public interest in ensuring compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, I consider an award of exemplary damages of $200 to be appropriate. The filing fee:
Because the applicant has been substantially successful in her application I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328814 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 5 Onepoto Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328814 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 5 Onepoto Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the bond lodged and are exemplary damages appropriate?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property as required by section 45?

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Homes ventilation standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the bond lodged and are exemplary damages appropriate?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property as required by section 45?

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Homes ventilation standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions