What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5470171 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5470171?

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 5470171?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5470171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14052611-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5470171 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5470171?

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 5470171?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5470171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14052611-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36 Argentine Avenue, Miramar, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5470171 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] to pay the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment the sum of $7,718.00 immediately, calculated as follows: ItemAmount Exemplary damages for a breach of the landlords obligations around tenancy agreements (s13A(1CA)) $250.00 Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the tenants bond in the [The tenant/s] (ss19) $750.00 Reimbursement of tenants bond$1370.00 Breach of landlords responsibilities (x3) s45.$4320.00 Compensation$1000.00 Costs$28.00 Total $7718.00
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The application is filed within the Chief Executives tenancy compliance jurisdiction. In practice, the Chief Executive’s jurisdiction is exercised by officers of the Tenancy Compliance Investigation Team (TCIT). For brevity in this decision, any reference to TCIT or MBIE strictly means the Chief Executive.
The application is brought against [The landlord/s], a landlord. As will be set out below, MBIE’s position is that Mr Shah has breached a range of his landlord obligations, and various orders are sought in relation to that.
A hearing was convened in [event location suppressed] on 13 August 2026.

BACKGROUND

This dispute relates to a tenancy at 36A Argentine Avenue in Miramar, Wellington.
On 8 January 2025 1 , a tenancy was entered into with three tenants on 13 January 2025, and was a one year fixed term tenancy ending on 12 January 2026. The tenancy agreement was the standard form tenancy agreement provided by Tenancy Services (MBIE).
The agreement records that there was a “Plan to build new house, plans drawn up”. And that the tenancy was exempt from obligations under the Healthy Homes Standards because of plans to demolish and rebuild the property. I will discuss this further below.
Otherwise, the tenants have raised a range of complaints with TCIT regarding the premises. TCIT investigated the complaint, which has resulted in this claim to the Tribunal.
The tenancy has since ended.

CHIEF EXECUTIVES CLAIMS

The Chief Executive’s claims are as follows: 1 This is the date of the tenancy agreement. a. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards compliant statement requirements. b. Failure to lodge bond. c. Failure to provide the premises reasonably clean. d. Failure to maintain the premises. e. Failure to meet obligations in relation to smoke alarms. f. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

WITNESS EVIDENCE

Ms Patelesio’s evidence

Ms Patelesio is the MBIE investigator, and attended the hearing to give evidence. A witness statement was provided in advance from Ms Patelesio which was taken as read. There were no further questions from Ms Geary.
Under cross examination, the landlord asked what the HHS breaches were, Ms Patelesio confirmed the breaches of the HHS were of the: a. Ventilation standard. b. Heating standard.
Ms Patelesio said that she did not see any vent at the back of the property, but could feel air coming back inside from the unit. Ms Patelesio referred to the rangehood photograph which show a hole in the top of the unit. Ms Patelesio said she could not recall if there was a vent on the outside of the wall or not. [The tenant/s] evidence
[The tenant/s] is one of co-tenants, and he attended the hearing to give evidence. [The tenant/s] was assisted by a Hindi interpreter provided by the Tribunal.
[The tenant/s] has provided a statement, which is on the file at exhibit 28. [The tenant/s] confirmed that he signed the statement.
[The tenant/s] also confirmed that he signed the tenancy agreement, which was signed at KFC in Kilbirnie.
[The tenant/s] advised that Mr Shah had completed everything on the tenancy agreement, he only signed it, and the written agreement was handed over one month later.
In terms of the property inspection report on the tenancy agreement, [The tenant/s] confirmed that he signed the inspection report which was signed at the same time as he signed the tenancy agreement, but there were no ‘ticks’ on the inspection report, they were put in later. I asked [The tenant/s] at the hearing with reference to the specific boxes for the tenant to record the state of the property, whether he had ticked those boxes. [The tenant/s] said he did not tick that box.
However [The tenant/s] confirmed that he had seen the property before the tenancy agreement was entered into.
Under cross examination the landlord asked [The tenant/s] if the house was clean when he first viewed. [The tenant/s] confirmed that the house was clean, but the walls were dirty, and there was no toilet paper holder in the toilet. There was an issue where the flush on the toilet was not working properly. Further there was a water pressure issue.
The landlord challenged the tenant about whether the tenants would undertake cleaning. However the tenant then said they did not open their luggage because the premises were unclean. The Landlord challenged the tenant has having a cluttered house with belongings with reference to the photographs.
In conclusion, Ms Geary referred to photographs taken within a week of the tenancy commencement, which showed dust on an extraction vent, mould on the ceiling and marks on the curtain. [The tenant/s] said he could not use the kitchen because the kitchen was dirty.

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 Chief Executive), 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.
This means that the Chief Executive must prove the claims, if the evidence falls short of proving the case to the balance of probabilities, it must be dismissed. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim 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

The Chief Executive claims that the landlord has breached six obligations under the RTA, I will consider the claims in turn. Claim 1 - Breach of obligations in relation to the Healthy Homes Compliance Statement
The Chief Executive submits that the tenancy agreement is false or misleading, and the landlord would have known that, because the landlord indicated that the premises were to be demolished or rebuilt which is not the case. The statement signed by the landlord confirms that a consent or application needed to be obtained. To that extent the landlord must have known that his certification was wrong.
The Wellington City Council confirmed that the only application was filed in February 2021, and the application subsequently cancelled and returned.
When the tenants rented the premises, there was no consent applied for as it relates to the premises.
In response, the landlord said that he did not say there was an exemption, but plans had been drawn up, but it was not an opportunity to avoid obligations. However, following discussion the landlord accepted he was not eligible to an exemption because there was no existing application for a consent, or a consent granted. Analysis
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.
In this case, the landlord has not provided any of the required information regarding the HHS. On the portion of the tenancy agreement which would otherwise be the HHS compliance statement, the landlord has indicated that he is exempt from providing that information where he has ticked a box to indicate: The landlord intends to demolish or substantially rebuild the rental property and has applied for or has been granted the relevant resource or building consent.
The HHS includes an exemption at regulation 31 where the landlord did not need to comply with the HHS if the premises were to be demolished or substantially rebuilt: 31 Exemption if premises due to be demolished or substantially rebuilt (1)The landlord need not comply with regulation 6 if,— (a)before the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord applied for consent to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises, with that work to begin within the grace period; and (b)as at the commencement of the tenancy,— (i)the application is still pending; or (ii)if consent was granted before the tenancy commenced, the consent remains in force.
At the hearing the landlord accepted that he did not meet the criteria for an exemption to the HHS, because he did not have an application for a consent for demolition or substantial rebuild. It was not open to the landlord to avail himself of the exemption, and to that extent has committed an unlawful act when he did not then provide the HHS statement.
The question then becomes whether exemplary damages should be ordered, and in relation to that question, I must consider the section 109 criteria set out above.
I conclude that the landlords breach was most likely to be intentional. I reach that view because the HHS form that the landlord completed on the tenancy agreement, includes the ‘tick box’ which the landlord ticked, indicating the landlord has at least applied for the consent which is not the case. Taking into account that Mr Shah is a Real Estate agent, he must know that there are rules that apply, and would be expected to have reviewed and understood agreements that he puts his signature to.
The effect for the tenants is that they have lived in a tenancy where they did not know how the tenancy levelled up to the HHS, and in this case, as I will discuss below, the premises did not comply with the HHS as it relates to heating.
There are strong interests for tenants and the public generally that landlords comply with their obligations to notify tenants of the HHS situation with the tenancy.
I consider it would be just to make an order in the circumstances of this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach of section 13A(1CA) is $750.00. I consider an order at 1/3rd of the maximum if indicated. I am not aware of other similar breaches from the landlord that may argue for a higher award, or factors that would mitigate and require a lesser order. The order is therefore for the payment of exemplary damages of $250.00. Claim 2 - Breach of obligations in relation to bond
The Chief Executive submits that the landlord has failed to lodge the bond with the [The tenant/s] within 23 working days of receipt.
The tenancy agreement records that the rent due was $685 per week to be paid in advance, with a bond of $1,370.
The bond records confirm that no bond was lodged. Further, the bank records from the tenant show that payments consistent with a bond payment.
In response, the landlord says that an agreement was reached for the payment of lawn mowing services, and also to pay for rubbish services. That was calculated at $700, but that the tenant proposed to pay $685. That was agreed, so this payment represented the rubbish and lawn mowing charges over the year.
At the hearing Ms Geary asked the landlord for clarification of his background, which included work as a real estate agent for some four years.
Mr Shah accepts that there is no reference in the tenancy agreement to any agreement around the lawn mowing and rubbish removal.
Mr Shah also referred to the tenancy agreement which records that the initial rent payment was $2,055, the point being this was not recorded as bond. Analysis
The Chief Executive 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 [The tenant/s].
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.
In this case I consider it very likely that the tenants paid the landlord bond which was not lodged in the [The tenant/s]. I do not agree the initial payment was for a year's worth of lawn mowing and rubbish bin costs.
The tenancy agreement was signed on 8 January 2025, and it records the rent to be paid weekly was $685, to be paid in advance, and that there was bond due of $1,370. If the rent due and the bond was added together, that totals $2,055.
The tenancy agreement includes a receipt for $2,055 and that is dated 9 January 2025. That matches the rent and bond due amount. I also note the tenants supplied their bank records showing that a payment was made to the landlord on 8 January 2025 of $2,055.
I found the landlords explanation that there was a verbal agreement for the payment of lawn mowing and rubbish services for the coming year, of $685, the precise amount of one week's rent, unconvincing. That also does not explain what the other $685 would be for. Rather, it is far more likely that the initial payment made by the tenants on 8 January 2025 was the one week of rent in advance, and the bond.
Furthermore, if I were to accept the landlord's position, I would also need to accept that the landlord had recorded the requirement for a bond payment on the tenancy agreement, but was otherwise not interested in pursuing that payment, and I am not convinced about that either.
Finding as I do that the tenants paid the landlord the bond of $1,370, that means that the landlord needed to lodge that payment with the [The tenant/s] within 23 working days, the landlord did not do that. Accordingly, the landlord has breached his obligations under section 19, which is an unlawful act, meaning exemplary damages could be ordered.
I find that exemplary damages should be ordered in this case. I consider it very likely that the landlord was aware of his obligations to lodge bonds with the [The tenant/s]. The landlord is a real estate agent, it is inconceivable to me that he would be unaware that landlords had obligations around bond lodgement.
The effect for the tenants is that their bond has not been kept safely in the [The tenant/s], and even at the end of the tenancy, the bond has not been refunded. If the bond had been in the [The tenant/s], it would have been more simple for the tenants to get the bond back.
There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally, that the bond system be strong and robust, which means there are obligations on tenants to pay the bond as required, and landlords to lodge it into the [The tenant/s].
It would be just to make an order in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damage damages that can be ordered for a breach of section 19, is $1,500. In this case I consider an order at 50% of that maximum it would be required. I have taken into consideration that there is an aggravating factor in this case, which is that the bond was not returned to the tenants at the end of the tenancy. According then, I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $750, as well as refunding the tenants bond immediately. Claim 3 - Breach of obligations in relation to cleanliness
The Chief Executive submits that the landlord has failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
Reference is made to the photographs taken by the tenants at the start of the tenancy which support that the tenancy was in a poor state of cleanliness.
The landlords position is that the premises were clean at the start of the tenancy, it was clean and well ventilated. The landlord does not accept that the house was messy or unclean. Analysis
Section 45 of the RTA sets out the landlords responsibilities, which includes that: The landlord shall- Provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
As I indicated at the hearing, these claims invariably turn on the adjudicators assessment of the evidence, that is the photographic evidence provided, as well as the oral evidence at the hearing. In this case, I am satisfied to a high degree of confidence, that the premises were not provided to the tenants in a reasonably clean state. The tribunal has been provided photographs taken within days of the tenancy commencing, as well as more extensive photographs taken at the time of the inspection undertaken by Ms Palelesio, which was within three months of the tenancy start date.
The photographs show a range of areas in the Tenancy which are plainly dirty. There is no prospect that the dirt seen in those photographs arose within three months of the tenancy commencement date.
I find therefore, that the landlord has not provided the tenancy in a reasonably clean state, which is an unlawful act as far as section 45 is concerned.
The question then becomes whether exemplary damages should be ordered, and I find they should. The breach is likely to be intentional, the state of the tenancy would have been very clear to the landlord before the premises were rented to these tenants.
There are strong interests for tenants and the public generally, that when tenancies are rented, the premises comply with the required statutory criteria. In this case, the tenants rented premises that were not clean, and I accept that limited their enjoyment of the dwelling. I consider an order of exemplary damages would be just.
As accepted by the Chief Executive, claims for exemplary damages are considered on a global basis. What that means, is that if there is a claim for multiple breaches of the same section, section 45 in this case, I can only make one order to the maximum of section 45 if multiple breaches arise. Because of that, I will deal with the question of the quantum of exemplary damages to order, below. Claim 4 - Breach of obligations in regard to maintenance
The Chief Executive’s position is that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, taking into consideration the age and character of the premises.
It was submitted that: a. There was an open drain in the shower b. There were water issues, including low pressure when multiple services are used at the same time (ie use the shower when the toilet is flushed). c. There was no hot water in the kitchen.
It is submitted that the tenants did raise these issues with the landlord, and it culminated with a formal notification to remedy sent on 21 March 2025.
In response, Mr Shah submits that it is not uncommon for water pressure issues when multiple services are used at the same time. Mr Shah states that the hot water is working in the kitchen, which has been checked by a plumber. Even now the same hot water system is in place and is working, the landlord has not changed anything. Analysis
Again, section 45 sets out the landlord's responsibilities, and that includes the requirement on the landlord to: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
In this case, the Chief Executive claims that there are breaches of maintenance obligations on three grounds.
The first ground relates to an open drain in the shower. The photographs provided show that the trap in the shower is missing. There is no grate over the drain, and the tenant evidence was that pests would come through the drain into the shower. I am entirely satisfied that landlord was obligated to replace the trap and grate as a maintenance obligation, because without those items, the drainage system in the shower was not functioning as it should have. The landlord has breached his maintenance obligation to that extent.
However, the second and third maintenance claims relate to the water pressure, and also the hot water in the kitchen. I find those claims have not been proven.
Is it relates to the water pressure, I have not been provided any evidence from a plumber to support a conclusion that there was a fault with the plumbing system in the dwelling. It is not at all uncommon for dwelling in New Zealand to have low pressure water systems, which invariably mean that when somebody is using the water, if somebody else uses another facility, it affects the water pressure. To that extent, just because there is a fluctuation in water pressure when services are used in the house, does not of itself proved that there must be a fault. In the absence of evidence from a suitably qualified expert like a plumber, I am not persuaded that this claim has been proven.
In relation to the hot water in the kitchen, I consider this claim is finally balanced, but must conclude that it has not been established. Again I have not seen evidence from a Plumber to establish that there is a fault with the hot water system. Furthermore, I have no reason not to accept the evidence of the landlord, that the hot water system is working, and that no work has been undertaken on it, which may of itself have suggested that it was faulty.
In any event, I find the landlord has breached his obligations around maintenance, as it relates to the shower trap. To that extent, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I consider that the landlord must have known the shower trap was missing, it was obvious, and it appears that the landlord did an inspection prior to the start of this tenancy, as reflected in the inspection report in the tenancy agreement. The missing trap should have been seen at that time.
The effect for these tenants, is that they have had pests come through the drain, which is not good enough.
There are strong interest for tenants and the public generally, that tendencies be compliant and healthy. That necessarily means that pests do not come into the premises, and showers and drainage are safe to operate.
I consider it would be just to make an order, but on the scheme of things the breach is on the lower end of the scale, I will take that into consideration when determining the quantum. Claim 5 - Breach of obligations regarding smoke alarms.
The Chief Executive submits that the landlord has not complied with his smoke alarm obligations because when the inspector attended the premises, there were no batteries in the smoke alarms.
I raised with Ms Geary that the obligation is not on the landlord to provide batteries during the tenancy, it is to provide smoke alarms working at the start of the tenancy 2 . I asked what evidence there was that the alarms were not working at the start of the tenancy, but Ms Geary could not point to this.
The landlord disputes this claim, saying that he considers that safety is important. The landlord does not agree there was no working alarm. There was no cross examination of Mr Shah. Analysis
As I noted at the hearing, the onus to prove the breach is on the Chief Executive. Mr Shah as the respondent does not need to prove anything.
The obligation on the landlord is to provide working smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy. Certainly the landlord has proven that when the inspector inspected the premises there were no batteries, but I must conclude that the Chief Executive has not proven the batteries were missing at the start of the tenancy. This claim has therefore not been established. Claim 6 - Breach of obligations regarding Healthy Homes Standards
The Chief Executive submits that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS, regulation 8 (heating) and regulation 23 (extractor fans).
It was submitted that there was no heating provided in the main living area, and the rangehood was vented back into the kitchen. Reference was made to the photograph of the rangehood, where there was a hole in the top of the 2 Regulation 9 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 place the obligations on tenants to replace smoke alarm batteries during a tenancy. rangehood which would have allowed extracted air to vent back into the kitchen.
In response, the landlord states when the heater was purchased, the size of the room was given to the sale person, and a heater was provided. The heater was a 1,500 kWh convection heater.
In terms of the ventilation, the house has an HRV system, and the rangehood above the stove vents outside. Analysis
The Chief Executive has claimed that the landlord has breached his obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
In this case, the claim is that the landlord has breached the heating and ventilation standards.
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/.
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 that vent externally. Heating
As above, the heating standard requires heaters of a minimum standard, referred to as ‘qualifying heaters’. The HHS defines what a ‘qualifying heater’ is in regulation 9. The moveable convection heater the landlord provided would not comply with that requirement because it is not a fixed heater at least.
I am satisfied that the landlord has not complied with the hearing standard. Ventilation
The Chief Executive’s position is that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard, because the rangehood in the kitchen is not externally vented. If that was the case that would be a breach.
However, in this case I find the evidence falls short of showing a breach. The landlords evidence is that the unit was externally ducted. The Inspector did not have photographs showing the outside wall of the kitchen, and could not recall the situation of whether there was an exterior vent.
The Inspector has noted the hole on the top of the extractor fan which it was submitted needed to be attached to a duct to be externally ducted.
The landlords position is that there is a duct connected inside the unit.
Based on the evidence, I am not able to see any reason to prefer the Inspectors evidence over that of the landlord in this matter. Both parties present a credible case, which must mean that this claim has not been proven to the balance of probabilities. Exemplary damages
The landlord has breached the HHS as it relates to the heating standard.
I consider it more likely than not that the landlord would have been aware of his obligations around the HHS. Again the landlord is a Real Estate agent, so would very likely be familiar with obligations that arise with rental dwellings.
The effect for these tenants is that they have lived in a house without the necessary heating provided. That would mean the tenants have lived in premises that would not be a warm as they could have, and the hearing that was provided would probably be more expensive.
There are also strong obligations for tenants and the public generally, that tenancies be healthy, meaning warm. That is achieved with compliance with the HHS.
I consider it would be just to make an order in this case.
Because this is a breach of section 45, I will consider the quantum of the order below. Quantum of exemplary damages for breaching section 45
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a breach of section 45, is $7,200. As also discussed above, exemplary damages are ordered on a global basis, that means I can only make one order to a maximum of $7,200 for all breaches of section 45, I cannot make multiple orders to that maximum.
As found above, the landlord has breached section 45 in relation to a. Providing a premises that are reasonably clean at the start of the Tenancy. b. Failing to comply with the maintenance obligations in relation to the shower trap. c. Failing to provide a qualifying heater, so breaching the HHS.
In this case there are three breaches of section 45. When I take into account the gravity of these breaches, I have determined that an appropriate level of exemplary damages would be 60% of the maximum, which is $4,320.00.

COMPENSATION

The Chief Executive seeks an order of 50% of the total rent paid during the tenancy,
Mr Shah states that he has incurred a loss with this tenancy when the tenants moved out early and needed incur cleaning costs. 3 Analysis
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has breached a range of obligations to the tenants, and I consider that all of those breaches would have effected the tenants enjoyment of the tenancy.
Another way to look at it is that the tenants are not getting what they pay rent to receive. When the tenants pay rent, it is implicit that they are paying rent in order to receive premises that comply with the minimum standards required in law, such as premises which are clean, maintained and compliant with the HHS. The tenants did not get that.
It is fair that the tenants receive some compensation for not getting what they are paying for. I do not consider that compensation at 50% of the maximum would be proportionate to the tenants loss. While I have ordered exemplary damages, the law is clear that exemplary damages are not 3 If Mr Shah considers he has sustained a loss, he needs to brings his own claim, I cannot consider that under this claim. compensatory, so it is reasonable that compensation should be ordered as well.
When I step back and consider the likely loss for the tenants, I consider that compensation on $1,000 would be reasonable taking into consideration the detriment and rent paid.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must order name suppression to apply for the tenants.

COSTS

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, which is $28.00.
The Applicant also seeks witness expenses for [The tenant/s] of $25.00 under the Witness and Interpreters Fees, Allowances and Expenses Regulations 2003. On balance, I decline to make this order. I am aware that the practice of the Chief Executive is to pay any money received from this order to the tenants concerns. To that extent, while [The tenant/s] is not a party to these proceedings in the technical sense, he will be the beneficiary of the order nevertheless. It would not be reasonable to order witness expenses in that circumstance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5470171 — Exemplary damages at 36 Argentine Avenue, Miramar, Wellington 6022

Tenancy Tribunal case 5470171 — Exemplary damages at 36 Argentine Avenue, Miramar, Wellington 6022

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CHIEF EXECUTIVES CLAIMS

WITNESS EVIDENCE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

COMPENSATION

NAME SUPPRESSION

COSTS

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CHIEF EXECUTIVES CLAIMS

WITNESS EVIDENCE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

COMPENSATION

NAME SUPPRESSION

COSTS

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.