What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5391841?

The tribunal order states: Wongeoon Vast Limited must pay Billy Howie, Tracey Morris, Andrew

How much money was awarded in case 5391841?

Compensation: Interference with Quie…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391841?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13249166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5391841?

The tribunal order states: Wongeoon Vast Limited must pay Billy Howie, Tracey Morris, Andrew

How much money was awarded in case 5391841?

Compensation: Interference with Quie…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391841?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13249166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8A Bradshaw Terrace, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391841 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391841 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond	$500.00	Failure to Lodge Bond
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes Statement	$500.00	Healthy Homes Statement
Compensation: Interference with Quiet Enjoyment	$500.00	Interference with Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391841 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond	$500.00	Failure to Lodge Bond
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes Statement	$500.00	Healthy Homes Statement
Compensation: Interference with Quiet Enjoyment	$500.00	Interference with Quiet Enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Order

Wongeoon Vast Limited must pay Billy Howie, Tracey Morris, Andrew Sheppard and April Manson $1,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge Bond $500.00 Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes Statement $500.00 Compensation: Interference with Quiet Enjoyment $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $1,528.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,528.00
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5pm on Thursday, 2 April 2026: a. The French style exterior door in the garage/hall is to be inspected, then repaired or replaced by a licenced LBP tradesperson so that the door closes and locks securely without gaps or draughts.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $2,500 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $1,500. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants were represented by Mr Howie. The other tenants did not attend the hearing.
The tenant seeks a range of work orders and claims that the landlord has breached multiple obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). The landlord disputes the claims.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. Work Orders – Condition of the Premises
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s obligation is to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The landlord must also ensure that the premises meet the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant raised a range of issues from allegedly defective power sockets to unclear gutters, to rotten weatherboards. The tenant provided sparse evidence in support of its claims. There were some photographs, which tended to show premises consistent with what could be expected for a house of this age and construction. Mr Howie said that he was concerned that an area of apparent water damage to the weatherboards may be causing water ingress and internal dampness. However, he confirmed that there was no internal evidence of water seepage or water damage. There was no independent evidence of defects with the property.
In a claim for breach of insulation standards, the District Court has held that there must be safe and reliable evidence of non-compliance. See King & Yushkova v Greene [2021] NZDC 23637. The same rationale must apply to alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant’s evidence did establish that there is an issue with draughts and security of a French style door in the garage/internal hallway. The door appears to “stick” and swell in damp and is not secure. The landlord says that the door has been repaired but the tenant’s current photographs show that any repair attempts have not been adequate.
The door must be inspected and then repaired or replaced by a licenced LBP so that is secure and free from gaps or draughts, as set out in the Orders above.
However, the tenants’ other claims were not proved. For example, the tenant provided photographs of electrical face plates to claim that the wiring is defective. The tenant claims the face plates were loose, even if that was the case, it does not establish any defect with the wiring. There does appear to be some historical water damage on the exterior, but the evidence does not establish the extent or scope of any defect or any remedial work that might be required. Based on the photographs there could be areas of rot, or they could be old weatherboards, consistent with a property of this age. The tenant has not met the evidential threshold to prove a breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Except in relation to the French Door, the claims for works orders and claims relating to the condition of the property are dismissed. Failure to Provide Healthy Homes Statement
The tenant’s claim that the landlord did not provide a complete Healthy Homes Statement in the tenancy agreement prior to the tenancy commencing.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. It must include all the information set out in s13A. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement or if the statement includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide the insulation statement, or up to $900.00 for knowingly providing false or misleading information.
Further, a landlord must provide the tenant with any information described in s123A(1)(e) within 21 days of a request from the tenant. See s45(1AC) RTA. Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00
The landlord did include a Healthy Homes Statement with the tenancy agreement. It was two years old and was blank in relation to heating. The tenant asked for complete and up to date information at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has not provided it.
The landlord’s responses to the tenant show a disregard for its obligations. The landlord maintained that, as there is no requirement for an independent body to complete Healthy Homes Statements, it was entitled to rely on the two-year-old document attached to the Tenancy Agreement. However, the information was incomplete.
The landlord attempted to blame this failure on previous tenant’s declining access. I do not accept that explanation. The landlord’s replies to the tenant maintained that the heating is fine, the house is warm. Again, that may be so, but the tenant is entitled to receive the information it requested, being a complete and accurate record or other document that relates to the landlord’s compliance with Healthy Homes Standards (s123A(1)(e) RTA).
This is a professional landlord who is, or should be, aware of the requirement to provide evidence of Healthy Homes Compliance. The communication to the tenant demonstrates a disregard for the landlord’s obligations and an attempt to blame others.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that exemplary damages are appropriate. I award $500 for this breach. Failure to Lodge the Bond
The tenants claim that \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.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The landlord received parts of the bond in two instalments. It did not lodge them with the bond centre within 23 workings days of receipt. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Again, the landlord attempted to blame the tenants and the bond centre for its non-compliance. It said that the bond centre would not accept partial bond lodgement, but a partial bond has in fact been lodged. The landlord’s representative said the landlord tried to submit the bond within time but he could not provide evidence of dates, because “a colleague” had been dealing with the matter.
This is a professional landlord, and should be well aware of its obligations in respect of the bond. There was no reasonable explanation for its failure to lodge the bond, on time, as and when instalments were received. I award exemplary damages of $500.00 for this unlawful act. Encouraging Bids For Rent
The tenants claim the landlord has invited or encouraged a prospective tenant or other person to offer to pay rent for the premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated in the advertisement or offer.
A landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent that exceeds the amount of rent stated in the advertisement or offer. See section s 22G 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 22G(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The premises were advertised for rent at $695.00 per week. The landlord says they were advertised as “no pets”. The tenant says there was nothing in the advertisement regarding pets.
The tenant asked to have a dog and two cats. The landlord said that the two cats would be fine, but that it would have to check whether the owner would consent to a dog. The owner did consent provided that the tenants paid an additional $45 per week, making the weekly rent $740. The tenant’s accepted that offer.
I find that it is more likely than not, that the landlord had advised the tenant the dogs were not, generally, permitted at the property (either at the viewing or in the advertisement)
This fact pattern does not amount to a breach of s22G. The landlord did not invite or encourage a higher offer from the tenant. Rather, it proposed a higher rent, for the tenant to rent to premises on different terms than originally offered by the landlord.
At the hearing the landlord confirmed that if the tenant’s no longer have the dog, the rent will reduce the advertisement amount of $695.00 per week. Notice to End the Tenancy
The tenants claim that the landlord his improperly attempted to terminate this tenancy or has issued a retaliatory notice to terminate.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the hearing Mr Howie conceded that the landlord has not, in fact, issued a notice to end the tenancy. Instead, he referred to a series of text messages from the landlord encouraging the tenants to end the tenancy by “mutual” agreement, texts stating that the fixed term tenancy will not be renewed because of the tenant’s lack of trust of the landlord, and suggesting that the tenant’s should move if they are not happy with the landlord or the premises.
While the messages, are not formal notice to end the tenancy, I have considered them in the context of S38 RTA.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
I find that the messages from the landlord which suggest ending the tenancy and stating that the fixed term will not be renewed amount to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I do not find that the breach amounts to harassment. The tenant has been distressed by the comments which were made in response to requests for information and the tenant seeking assurances in relation to the property. I award compensation of $500 for this breach.
As the tenant was partially successful, I award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. However, I do not consider that either party was substantially successful, so make no order in relation to suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391841 — Exemplary damages at 8A Bradshaw Terrace, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391841 — Exemplary damages at 8A Bradshaw Terrace, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions