What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396003?

The tribunal order states: Clare Sweetapple must pay Julie (Anne) Whyte $678.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5396003?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396003?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13424148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396003?

The tribunal order states: Clare Sweetapple must pay Julie (Anne) Whyte $678.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5396003?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396003?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13424148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38 Kuratawhiti Street, Greytown, Greytown 5712 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396003 — Exemplary damages

Order

Clare Sweetapple must pay Julie (Anne) Whyte $678.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $850.00 (6499231-004) to Julie (Anne) Whyte immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 26 June 2023. The landlord is Clare Sweetapple, and the tenant Julie Whyte. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond$300.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement$250.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to provide rent receipt$100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$678.00
The tenant paid a bond at the start of the tenancy, but the bond was not lodged until 6 August 2023.
The tenancy has ended.
The tenant has filed various claims with the Tribunal as below.
A hearing was scheduled for today, 10 April 2026, in the Masterton District Courthouse. The tenant contacted the Tribunal in advance, requesting to attend by telephone as she lives in the Hawkes Bay. That was granted. The landlord was also offered the opportunity to attend by telephone, but did not accept that offer. The landlord had applied for an adjournment, but it was not granted as there were insufficient reasons to delay the hearing. It is the case that the landlord emailed the Tribunal on 9 April 2026, setting out various comments, which I have considered, but she also acknowledges that the hearing would proceed in her absence.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed her claims are as follows: a. An order to have the bond refunded. b. Failure to lodge bond. c. Failure to provide a receipt for the rent. d. Failure to provide a Healthy Homes Report. e. Failure to provide insurance information.
The tenant states that she paid the bond to the landlord.
At the hearing Ms Whyte advised that she had other grievances with the landlord, but as I indicated to Ms Whyte at the hearing, I can only consider the matters in her application which are those above.
In terms of the bond, the tenant states that she paid the bond on 20 June 2023 by cash, the tenant paid $1,700 in cash (which included rent), but understands the bond was not lodged until 6 August 2023.
The tenant further says did not receive a receipt for the cash payment.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

As above, the tenant seeks a range of claims, I will now consider those in turn. Claim 1 – Bond refund
The tenant seeks a refund of her bond. I can see from the documentation on file that the landlord does not oppose the bond refund. In any event, section 22B of the RTA confirms that when a tenant applies to the Tribunal for a bond refund, the Tribunal must order the bond be repaid to the tenant unless the landlord files their own application in relation to the bond, which is not the case.
Have contacted the Bond Centre, and they have confirmed that the bond of $850.00 is still sitting in the Bond Centre. I have made an order that the bond be released in full to the tenant. The Bond Centre will contact the tenant and arrange the repayment from here. Claim 2 – Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond
The tenant states that she made a payment of the bond to the landlord on 20 June 2023. The evidence is that the bond was lodged in the Bond Centre, on 6 August 2023. That is some 32 days after the payment was made.
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
There is no doubt that the bond was lodged late. Again it needed to be lodged within 23 working days, it was lodged 32 days after it was paid. While the lateness is not extreme, it was lodged late nevertheless.
The question is whether exemplary damages can be ordered. I have sent out the factors I must consider in section 109, and when I work through those I consider that exemplary damages should be made for these reasons.
I consider the failure to lodge the bond was intentional. I note that there are communications on file which show that the tenant had contacted the landlord to remind her about the bond lodgement, as she had not received confirmation that the bond had been received by the Bond Centre. Unfortunately, the landlord did not act on those prompts, but in any event, I have no reason to believe that her decisions around the bond lodgement were not intentional. The effect for the tenant is that her bond was not kept securely. There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that the bond system be strong, and that requires that landlords lodge the bond, which is the tenant’s money, as the law requires it. I consider it would be just to make an order in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a breach of the landlord’s bond obligations is $1500. In this case, I consider an order of $300 would be reasonable. I have taken into consideration that the period of time for which the bond was late is reasonably modest, and that the bond was in fact lodged. But it was a breach nevertheless. I can consider $300 would be a reasonable order in the circumstances. Claim 3 – Failure to provide rent receipt
The tenant states that at the start of the tenancy, she made a cash payment to the landlord comprising the bond, and the first rent payment. The tenant says that no receipt has been provided for that.
Section 29 of the RTA relates to receipts for rent. That provision confirms that when a rent payment is made, a receipt must be provided setting out the details of the payment. That needed to be given to the tenant, to use the word in the RTA “forthwith”. In reality, that relates to cash payments, because if the payment was made via the bank, section 29 confirms that a receipt would not be required, because there would of course be the payment records for the deposit/transfer.
In this case I have no reason not to accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not receive a receipt for the payment. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that a receipt was paid, or that the payment was electronic.
Failure to provide a rent receipt is also declared an unlawful act. I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered. I have no reason to believe that the landlord’s actions were not intentional. The effect for the tenant is that she did not have evidence of the initial payment made to the landlord, which she should have. There are compelling interests for tenants to receive rent receipts, and I consider that in order would be just.
I consider an order at around 1/3 of the maximum would be indicated; I can see no argument for a higher or less amount. I therefore order exemplary damages of $100.00. Claim 4 – Failure to provide a Healthy Homes Statement
The Tenant states that the landlord failed to provide a Health Homes Standards (HHS) statement with the tenancy agreement.
In her email to the Tribunal that the Landlord sent at 7:23 pm, yesterday, the Landlord states: I haven’t been able to locate the tenancy agreement tonight, however from memory and I can get a written statement from the only other witness at the time if need be that I handed over the healthy homes portion at the time, if Julia was missing this or worried about it she never let me know as I could have easily duplicated it for her.
The landlord has not provided any further evidence, and in short I have no reason not to disbelieve what the tenant says, that the HHS statement was not provided.
It is not a defence to say that the tenant could have asked for it to be provided, there is a positive obligation on the landlord to provide this document.
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the requirements for tenancy agreements. Subsection (1CA) holds that: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) 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 (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
Section 13A(1F) confirms that an unlawful act arises if a landlord fails to comply with section 13A(1CA).
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Regulation 33 sets out the information that must be provided in a tenancy agreement as being the information set out between regulations 34 to 39. I will not detail that here, but it requires very specific information about heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Again, I have no reason to consider that the landlords breach was not intentional. The landlord has used the standard form Tenancy Services, tenancy agreement, and if that had been properly followed, it would have been clear that the HHS statement was required, indeed that is found in the standard form agreement. The effect for the tenant is that she was not put on notice as to the situation at the Tenancy with the HHS, and there are compelling interest for tenants and the public generally that this sort of information is provided to ensure people live in accommodation that is healthy for them. It would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for the breach, is $750.00. Again, I consider an order at 1/3 of the maximum would be reasonable, and that is ordered. Claim 5 – Failure to provide insurance information
The tenant has also claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide insurance information. It is the case that section 13A of the RTA sets out a range of information that a landlord must provide, and that includes information about the insurance held for the premises. That requires information regarding the insurance policy, including the level of excess that applies.
This case, the landlord has provided information regarding the policy being with “MAS”, which is the Medical Assurance Society. However, the tenancy agreement does not record the level of the excess, which is a breach.
However, I decline to order exemplary damages. While there is a technical breach where the tenancy agreement does not record the level of excess, it does confirm there is an insurance policy, and the name of the insurer. The landlord has committed a breach, but I would not consider it just to make an order of exemplary damages for that limited breach.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore, to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396003 — Exemplary damages at 38 Kuratawhiti Street, Greytown, Greytown 5712

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396003 — Exemplary damages at 38 Kuratawhiti Street, Greytown, Greytown 5712

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE