What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381181 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 5381181?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381181?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13339773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381181 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 5381181?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381181?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13339773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

70 Hine Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5381181 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The brief background to this matter is: a. The tenancy began on 22 May 2025, and ended on 29 October 2025. b. The tenancy is a single bedroom flat downstairs from the landlord’s upstairs dwelling. c. Rent was $360/wk and bond of $720 was paid, however, the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. d. On 21 October 2025, the tenants advised that they needed to move out as family members were unwell. This was accepted by landlord. e. Towards the end of the tenancy several disputes arose about: i. The Landlord charging for split electricity charges. The landlord had communicated that there were two power meters and therefore two bills. However, there was a single meter and a single bill which was split with the tenants paying 2/5 of the bill. This split was based on the fact that there were five adults across both dwellings. ii. Both tenants use cannabis medicinally, with prescriptions. However, the landlord was not advised of this, and took exception to the use of cannabis at the premises. iii. The alleged absence of a ventilation fan in the bathroom. iv. The lack of a suitable heating source in the flat. v. Alleged harassment.

The tenant has brought applications as follows: a. Exemplary damages for the failure to lodge the bond. b. Exemplary damages for alleged heating home breaches relating to the lack of ventilation the bathroom and the lack of a heating source in the living area. c. Compensation of $5000 for the shared power arrangement. d. Compensation of $1600 for alleged breaches of quiet enjoyment. e. Compensation of $2200 for the health impacts and general inconvenience. Failure to lodge bond

[The tenant/s] 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 (RTA).

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 RTA.

During the hearing the landlord admitted that they had not lodged the bond, as they were not aware of their obligation to do is so. I find they have 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) RTA.

Considering the requirements of S109 (3): a. I accept the landlord’s explanation that they were not aware of the requirements of the RTA. However, ignorance of the law is no defence. b. The effect of the unlawful act was that the bond, which are the tenant’s funds held on trust, were not protected. The whole purpose of the bond arrangement under the RTA is that it protects money belonging to tenants from the risks and uncertainty of being held by their landlord. c. It is in the interests of tenants, and in the public interest that bonds are lodged as required by the RTA.

Exemplary damages are designed to provide a signal to parties when behaviour fails to meet expected standard under the legislation. They are designed to have a punitive element to them. It is the practice of this Tribunal to use a sliding scale when calculating exemplary damages to reflect the significance of the breach, and whether the landlord has previously committed the sort of breach. This landlord has not appeared before the Tribunal in the past. I find that $500 exemplary damages is a suitable level in this instance. Healthy homes breaches

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation and heating standards.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, however, all private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

In this case the landlord provided a portable oil column heater, however, the healthy homes standard requires that heater(s) must be fixed and not portable. The landlord has installed a bathroom ventilation fan since the tenancy ended. The landlord is in breach of the healthy homes requirements. I find Sumit Lather and Richa Behgal 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

Considering the requirements of S109 (3): a. As above the landlord has argued that they were not aware of the requirements of the RTA. However, as above ignorance of the law is no defence. b. The tenants refer to mould and mildew, to health issues they say are related to the damp condition of the tenancy. A medical certificate has been provided setting this out. c. It is in the public interest that tenants live in warm healthy premises. The public health costs of unhealthy living conditions are the reason why the healthy homes requirements have been put in legislation. d. It is in the tenant’s interest that they live and healthy conditions.

Taking into consideration the above I conclude that it is appropriate that the landlord paid $1200 exemplary damages. I note that the tenant had also sought compensatory damages for the issues raised above, however I do not feel that that is appropriate to make two awards in this instance, in part because no issues were raised with the landlord until end of the tenancy. The shared power arrangement

The tenants claim that the shared power arrangement was unlawful. Consequently, they seek $1224.37 which is the power they paid while the tenancy was on foot. There is nothing inherently unlawful with a shared power arrangement. There is no legal requirement that separate tenancies are on their own power meters. However, for charges to be lawful there must be accuracy and certainty of the actual costs of the power, or in the absence of this clear agreement as to the amount that a tenant will be charged. In this case there was no written tenancy agreement, which is in breach of the RTA but was not pleaded by the tenants.

Had there been a written agreement which set out how power was to be charged to the tenants this would be acceptable. However, in this instance the landlord has charged a proportion of the actual power costs without first having the agreement of the tenants. The mechanism for calculating these costs has been approached on the number of people living in both dwellings: three in the landlord’s upstairs dwelling, and two in the downstairs tenancy. This produces an arbitrary figure.

In some instances, dividing the power in this way would be legitimate had been done so in an open way. However, in this instance the upstairs dwelling is considerably larger than the small flat downstairs. The larger volume of air upstairs would cost substantially more to heat. Moreover, there was no upfront clarity with the tenants as to how the power would be charged as they were told that there were two separate metres. This is made out in the texts. As a result, the landlord had no legitimate basis to charge the power costs to the tenants, and cannot reasonably calculate the tenants actual electricity costs.

I have considered whether the electricity charges should be reimbursed in full. However, I conclude that this would not be fair or appropriate, as tenants did use power is reasonable that some payment should be made. I conclude that the tenant should reimburse $600 for the power paid for. Harassment

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them and doing so has breached their quiet enjoyment.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

I note that the acts of harassment which are referred to were disagreements in text messages relating to issues which arose later on in the tenancy after notice had been given. Some of these discussions were reasonably robust from both sides. These did not constitute harassment.

One particular exception taken to the discussions was the issue of the tenants cannabis use. I accept that the tenants cannabis use was not an unlawful act as they both held prescriptions or the cannabis used. However, they state in the application that the landlord has no right to enquire as to the prescription. This is not correct and is an issue which has arisen in other cases before me. If a tenant has a prescription for cannabis use which is taken using a vaporiser inside a tenancy, as in this case, it is not an unlawful act. However, a landlord may legitimately enquire as to the prescription status of a tenant’s use of cannabis, and the tenant is required to provide a copy of their prescription to prove that they are not engaging in and unlawful act.

For completeness I record that the landlord had also referred to failures to clean and to goods left in the tenancy, specifically a couch. I note that no counterclaim had been made for these items.

Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons