What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369868 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants have been successful with claims. The Order contains evidence of

How much money was awarded in case 5369868?

Compensation: fail to provide tenanc…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HH Non-Compliance: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HH Report: $287.44 awarded to tenant; Compensation: requiring excess rent…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369868?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13314616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5369868 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants have been successful with claims. The Order contains evidence of

How much money was awarded in case 5369868?

Compensation: fail to provide tenanc…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HH Non-Compliance: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HH Report: $287.44 awarded to tenant; Compensation: requiring excess rent…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5369868?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5369868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13314616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5369868 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5369868 — net $4,815.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: fail to provide tenancy agreement	$250.00	fail to provide tenancy agreement
Compensation: fail to lodge bond	$500.00	fail to lodge bond
Compensation: requiring excess rent in advance	$250.00	requiring excess rent in advance
Compensation: HH non-compliance	$3,500.00	HH non-compliance
Compensation: HH report	$287.44	HH report
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$4,815.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,815.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5369868 — net $4,815.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: fail to provide tenancy agreement	$250.00	fail to provide tenancy agreement
Compensation: fail to lodge bond	$500.00	fail to lodge bond
Compensation: requiring excess rent in advance	$250.00	requiring excess rent in advance
Compensation: HH non-compliance	$3,500.00	HH non-compliance
Compensation: HH report	$287.44	HH report
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$4,815.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,815.44

Order

The tenants have been successful with claims. The Order contains evidence of matters deeply personal to the landlords. The Tribunal Orders suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details. 1
must pay immediately, calculated as shown below:

00 Total award $4,815.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $4,815.44 1 See s.95A(1) and (4) RTA

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held in person. The tenants were supported (but not represented) by their new property manager.

What happened?

The premises are a standalone 2-bedroom cottage, on a property owned by [Landlord 1]. [Landlord 1] lives in the main house close by the cottage. [Landlord 2] is [Landlord 1]’s mother. She does not live on the property.
The cottage had previously been occupied by family.
In late 2024 the premises were advertised for rent on Trade Me. The advert noted, “Longer than 12 month tenancy desired”.
The tenants were then living in [Location 1] but were in the process of relocating to [Location 2]. They applied for the tenancy on New Year’s Eve without having seen the premises. They were offered the tenancy on New Year’s Day and accepted.
On 3 January 2025, [Landlord 1] e-mailed the tenants a draft tenancy agreement (agreement 1), noting, “I have filled in as much as I can online – I will print and we can complete in person.” That draft named the landlord as [Landlord 1]. It provided for a tenancy beginning on 10 January 2025 at a rent of $600.00 per week. No end date was specified. A Healthy Homes compliance statement was attached. That version of the agreement was not signed by either party.
Based on that, the tenants moved to the premises.
On 14 January 2025 [Landlord 1] approached the tenants at the property with an agreement she said [Landlord 2] had prepared (agreement 2). That agreement named [Landlord 2] as the landlord. It also provided for a tenancy starting on 10 January 2025 at a rent of $600.00 per week. Again, no end date was specified. The agreement had been signed by [Landlord 2] before being given to the tenants.
The tenants signed that agreement and returned it to [Landlord 1]. Before doing so, the tenants took photos of the key pages but not of the whole agreement.
Then, because she thought the intention had been for a longer term arrangement as noted in the Trade Me Ad, [Landlord 1] added in an end date of 10 January 2026, creating another version of the agreement (agreement 3). She says she meant to immediately take a copy of that agreement to the tenants but got distracted and forgot.
The tenants paid a bond of $1,200.00 and 2 weeks’ rent in advance on 7 January. The landlords transferred the bond out of the “everyday” account it had been paid into, to a savings account.
The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre.
On 19 January [Landlord 1] approached the tenants to say that they needed to pay another week’s rent immediately, which they did, as well as setting up an automatic payment for the weekly rent from 24 January.
On 7 October 2025 and several times after that, the tenants requested a rent statement from the landlords. None was provided.
The tenants gave Notice of Termination on 3 October 2025, ending the tenancy on 19 October 2025. The notice included: “As per our rental agreement, we had paid 2 weeks rent in advance at the beginning of our tenancy, therefore rent is almost covered until that date. We have calculated the remaining rent at $171. 42. If you find this number to be incorrect please let us know. We will pay the remaining rent today.” The tenants also requested return of their bond.
On 6 October [Landlord 2] responded, saying, among other things, that the agreement was for a fixed term until 10 January 2026 and that insufficient notice had been given.
The tenants’ bond was refunded in full around the time the tenant’s filed this application on 18 October 2025.
While not directly impacting on the parties’ legal obligations, it is important contextually to note that [Landlord 1]’s [child] died in tragic circumstances in [month] 2025. The evidence makes clear that communication between the parties then became more fraught. Claims
The tenants claim a series of breaches of the landlords’ obligations, namely: a. failure to properly to identify the landlord in the agreement; b. failure to provide them with the tenancy agreement; c. failure to lodge their bond; d. requiring rent to be paid while still paid in advance; e. failure to provide a rent statement; f. providing an incorrect Healthy Homes Compliance statement and providing premises that did not comply with Healthy Homes standards; g. failing to provide compliant smoke alarms; h. charging more than market rent for the premises.
The tenants seek compensation and/ or exemplary damages for those breaches. They also seek compensation for the cost of the Healthy Homes assessment they arranged.
The landlords filed a cross application seeking compensation for loss of rent and for exemplary damages. At the hearing, the landlords confirmed those claims are not being pursued. Approach to deciding the claims
The first thing the Tribunal has to do is determine whether the landlords breached their obligations in the ways claimed.
These are the tenants’ claims so as applicants they are required to provide evidence that proves the facts on which the claims are based, on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
If breaches of the landlords’ obligations are proved, the Tribunal must then assess whether loss has been caused. That loss may be in terms of financial loss or loss of amenity in the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises. Generally the tenants would be entitled to compensation for losses foreseeably caused by the breach.
In some circumstances where a breach has caused harm that is difficult to quantify, the Tribunal can award general damages.
If the breach is of a type which the RTA classes as an unlawful act, the Tribunal then needs to consider whether it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages. The purpose of exemplary damages is not to compensate for loss but to punish unlawful behaviour. Exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to compensation, up to the maximum amounts specified in Schedule 1A RTA.
In deciding whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the breach was intentional, which means that what was done, was done consciously. It does not require that the landlords intended to act unlawfully. 2
The Tribunal then needs to consider the intent behind the breach, the effect of the breach, the interests of the tenants and the public interest. 3
In some circumstances, where more than one unlawful act has been committed, the Tribunal needs to be careful to ensure that multiple “punishments” are not awarded for what are, in substance, the same breach of the party’s obligations. 4 Findings Failure to properly to identify landlord in the agreement
A landlord must ensure that the tenancy agreement includes the full name and contact details for the landlord. 5 Failing to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
A landlord can include an agent for the landlord. 6 Often, tenancy agreements name owner’s agents as the landlord although it is more usual for the agency and the name of the owner to be disclosed.
Here, the agreement identifies the person ([Landlord 2]) responsible for the landlord’s obligations. It gives addresses and other contact details through which the tenants could communicate with the landlord or serve notices (as shown by service of the Notice of Termination). At the time they signed the agreement the tenants were aware that the property was owned by [Landlord 1] but that [Landlord 2] was assisting.
I can understand the tenants having some curiosity about the nature of the arrangements between [Landlord 1] and [Landlord 2] and their respective responsibilities for the tenancy, given overlapping addresses and bank account numbers. I do not identify from the evidence any actual breach, loss, harm or inconvenience caused to the tenants from their uncertainty, that 2 See for example TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at para [37] 3 S.109(3) RTA 4 Eg. Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 at paras [28] [29] 5 S.13A(1) RTA 6 S.2 RTA would warrant an award of compensation or exemplary damages. Failure to provide tenancy agreement
Before the tenancy starts, a landlord must sign the agreement and provide a copy to the tenant. 7 Not doing so is an unlawful act attracting maximum exemplary damages of $750.00.
The landlords did not meet that obligation. The signed agreement was not provided until 14 January for a tenancy starting on 10 January.
After the agreement was signed by the tenants, a copy of the completed agreement was not provided to them – although they had taken their own, limited copy, by photograph.
The tenants were not given a copy of agreement 3 after it had been unilaterally, wrongly, altered by [Landlord 1].
The landlords breached their obligations and committed an unlawful act.
All those matters were within the landlords’ control so the breach must be considered intentional.
The consequences were that: a. the tenants were put in the vulnerable position of having relocated from [Location 1] to [Location 2] and moved in without a signed agreement being in place; b. there was confusion about the terms of the tenancy (periodic or fixed) causing dispute around the time the tenancy ended.
No direct loss was caused to the tenants because the landlords did not in the end claim rent for the fixed term period in agreement 3.
The landlords’ failure to properly document and provide the agreement to the tenants did add to the uncertainty and tension around the tenancy.
The public interest requires that landlords are aware of and comply with core obligations like this.
The landlords are not experienced landlords and there is no evidence of a pattern of such conduct. 7 S.13(2) RTA
Weighing those considerations, I find that a modest award of exemplary damages would be just. Failure to lodge the bond
A landlord must lodge any bond payment received from the tenant, with the Bond Centre, within 23 working days of receiving it. 8 Not doing that is an unlawful act with maximum exemplary damages of $1,500.00.
There is no dispute that the landlords failed to lodge the bond. They characterise it as an administrative oversight and say that the bond was held safely, refunded in full and returned, despite the inadequate termination notice given by the tenants.
The bond was moved from the landlords’ “-000” account to their “- 001” account so it is not the case that the bond was not lodged because the landlords forgot it was there.
There is no evidence to suggest that failure to lodge the bond was other than a genuine error – but that does not make the breach unintentional.
There is no evidence of the tenants having suffered actual loss and the bond was returned in full – despite the tenants having given less than the required 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
There is no suggestion of the landlords having a history of such breaches but again, this is a core obligation on landlords, that the public interest requires they be aware of and comply with.
Weighing those considerations I find that a modest award of exemplary damages for that breach would be just. Requiring rent in advance
A landlord must not require the payment of rent before the expiry of the period for which rent has already been paid. 9 Doing so is an unlawful act for which damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded.
The tenants paid 2 weeks’ rent in advance for the tenancy 8 S.19(2) RTA 9 S.23(1)(b) RTA beginning on 10 January so had paid their rent to 23 January. The next rent payment was due on 24 January.
The landlords required a payment on 19 January as well as 24 January so throughout the tenancy the rent was paid a week before it was due.
The landlords therefore beached their obligations and committed an unlawful act.
[Landlord 1] says she genuinely misunderstood the position and thought the 2 weeks’ rent in advance was to cover rent at the end of the tenancy.
For their part the tenants say that having to make that additional rent payment a week early put them under significant financial pressure but they were unable to give evidence of how they were actually adversely affected financially in any significant way.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant’s rent reconciliation was accepted by the landlords.
Again though, this breach falls into the category of fundamental landlord obligations a landlord needs to be aware of and comply with and which tenants are entitled to expect will be dealt with lawfully.
A small award of exemplary damages is just to recognise the landlords’ breach. Failure to provide rent statement
Where a tenant asks in writing for a rent statement, a landlord must provide it. Breach of that obligation can attract exemplary damages of up to $350.00.
The evidence shows that the landlords did not comply with the tenants’ request for a rent summary. That breach means they committed an unlawful act. It was intentional. They suggested they were not required to provide the statement and that the tenants should prepare their own.
There was no quantifiable loss caused to the tenants. Their own records and abilities enabled them to complete a rent ledger as easily as the landlords. The rent calculations they set out when giving notice of termination were accepted by the landlords.
Nevertheless, there is a statutory obligation on landlords to keep accurate rent records and provide those records on request. The tenants were entitled to expect that their request would be responded to.
I do note that these requests were made at a time not long after the death of [Landlord 1]’s [child] and the landlords were understandably grief stricken and distracted.
In the circumstances, with no actual harm or loss caused to the tenants, I would not consider it just to make an additional award of exemplary damages for this breach. Providing inaccurate HH statement and providing non-compliant premises
The agreement contains a Healthy Homes compliance statement, stating that the premises met Healthy Homes standards.
The tenants provided in evidence a Healthy Homes assessment completed by All Clear on 17 October 2025. It assessed the premises as non-compliant with Healthy Homes standards for: Insulation – rockwool ceiling insulation did not meet required thickness. Underfloor foam insulation panels were dislodged Ventilation – kitchen and bathroom extractors did not vent externally Drainage and moisture ingress – spouting and downpipes required replacement/ clearing and installation of a ground moisture barrier was required.
I understand those shortcomings have now been rectified.
The report proves on balance that the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards during the tenancy and the landlords’ compliance statement was wrong.
The landlords’ breach of the obligation to comply with each of the Healthy Homes standards noted and to provide an accurate Healthy Homes compliance statement is in each case, an unlawful act. Breach of HH standards has a maximum award of $7,200.00. Breach of the obligation to provide an accurate HH statement has a maximum award of $900.00.
The landlords’ evidence is that the premises had been assessed as habitable, following remediation work after Cyclone Gabrielle.
They say that they were confident in certifying the premises as Healthy Homes compliant because they knew insulation had been installed, they knew there were extractors in the kitchen and bathroom. They thought that the polystyrene underfloor insulation was the ground moisture barrier (the Healthy Homes compliance statement records the GMB as “polystyrene”).
The landlords did not arrange an independent assessment.
The post cyclone “clearance” is not the same as Healthy Homes standards compliance, which focuses on specific qualities of premises rented out for residential occupation.
This provides another example of the landlords not properly understanding their legal obligations. Several unlawful acts were committed.
There is no contemporaneous evidence showing concerns by the tenants that the premises were not appropriately warm and dry. This was a relatively short tenancy and the evidence does not show that these issues led to the tenants’ decision not to continue with the tenancy. Before giving notice they advised the landlord that they were looking for other accommodation because they were wanting more space.
The tenants were however entitled to expect that the premises they were renting complied with those key Healthy Homes requirements, especially when provided with a signed statement from the landlords saying they did.
Although several unlawful acts were committed, I will make only one award of exemplary damages because those breaches all stemmed from the same fundamental misunderstandings by the landlords.
The award should however be significant to recognise that multiple unlawful acts resulted. Fail to provide Smoke Alarms
The tenants allege that the premises were not protected by qualifying smoke alarms. One was installed on the hallway ceiling an extra two were left on the bench. It is only the compliance of the installed alarm that is in issue.
No evidence has been provided by the tenants to prove that the installed alarm was not compliant. They tested it and it was working. They did not ask AllClear to assess the premises for smoke alarm compliance. They did not take details of the smoke alarm.
At the end of the hearing I gave leave for the landlords to send a photo of the back of the installed alarm to check its required replacement date. I have been provided with several photos of the back of 2 different smoke alarms, one with an expiry of 2031 the other 2035. Without knowing which, or either of them, was the installed alarm, that does not provide proof of compliance.
I will not invite further evidence at this late stage.
This is the tenants’ claim and it is for them to provide evidence to prove their claim. They had the means to do so but the evidence available does not prove that the installed, working smoke alarm was not compliant. Market Rent
The tenants claim that the rent charged for the premises was more than a fair market rent and ask the Tribunal to: a. assess a fair market rent for the premises; and b. order a refund of any rent paid in excess of the assessed market rent.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether the rent payable for a tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. If so it can make an order reducing the rent payable to an amount in line with market rent. 10 Overpayments can be refunded. 11
However, any Order fixing a market rent cannot take effect before the date of the application for the Order. 12
This application was made on 18 October 2025. The tenancy ended on 19 October 2025. Even if an order was made, it could 10 S.25(1) RTA 11 S.27(3) RTA 12 S.25(4) RTA only affect the rent payable for 1 day. That does not justify the considerable evidential exercise involved in undertaking a market rent assessment. Healthy Homes assessment fee
This Order finds that the landlords breached their obligation to provide an accurate Healthy Homes compliance statement and provide premises that complied with Healthy Homes standards.
The tenants are entitled to compensation for reasonable losses that were foreseeably caused by that breach.
In the absence of such information from the landlords, it was reasonable and foreseeable that the tenants would obtain a professional compliance report. They could have asked the landlords to obtain one - in which case the landlords would have had to meet the same cost, so they are no worse off compensating the tenants for the report they obtained and which the landlords have relied on in bringing the premises up to compliance
The tenants should be compensated for the cost of that report.

Should general damages be awarded?

The tenants have received the benefit of exemplary damages awards, made to punish the landlords’ failure to recognise and comply with their obligations, even where there is no proof of direct loss to the tenants caused by those breaches. That is the nature of exemplary damages awards.
I find no basis in the evidence for making an award of general damages as well.
Because the tenants have succeeded with claims brought, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369868 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5369868 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Should general damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Should general damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions