What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5507370 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 5507370?

Compensation: Generator Fuel Costs: $222.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: inadequate electrical…: $495.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Week With No Power: $330.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5507370?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5507370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13844019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5507370 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 5507370?

Compensation: Generator Fuel Costs: $222.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: inadequate electrical…: $495.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Week With No Power: $330.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5507370?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5507370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13844019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

91B Kirk Road, Templeton, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5507370 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5507370 — net $6,415.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: generator fuel costs	$222.43	generator fuel costs
Compensation: week with no power	$330.00	week with no power
Compensation: inadequate electrical supply	$495.00	inadequate electrical supply
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$750.00	fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: fail to meet HH standards	$3,600.00	fail to meet HH standards
Bond (retained by landlord	$990.00	Bond (retained by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,415.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,415.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5507370 — net $6,415.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: generator fuel costs	$222.43	generator fuel costs
Compensation: week with no power	$330.00	week with no power
Compensation: inadequate electrical supply	$495.00	inadequate electrical supply
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond	$750.00	fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: fail to meet HH standards	$3,600.00	fail to meet HH standards
Bond (retained by landlord	$990.00	Bond (retained by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,415.43
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,415.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
By consent, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 91B Kirk Road, Templeton, Christchurch 8042 is terminated, and possession is granted to Wongeoon Vast Limited, at 11:59pm on Friday 3 July 2026.
Wongeoon Vast Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $6,415.43immediately, calculated below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by videoconference.
The application is about an agreement for occupation of a property comprising 2ha of land with a 2 bedroom off grid relocatable home on it. Rent of $330.00 per week is payable. The term is for a year from 25 April 2026. Jurisdiction
The Tribunal’s first consideration is whether the parties’ relationship is one that is subject to the Residential Tenancies Act and therefore within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The landlord says it is not, because the agreement is titled as a “Leasing Contract” and says, “The house 91B Kirk Road is off-grid, so is 91A Kirk Road. This Contract is commercial in nature, it’s NOT covered by the Residential Tenancies Act.”
The Tribunal must consider the substance of the agreement not only its title.
The RTA applies to all residential tenancies, except where specifically excluded 1 .
“Residential premises” are, “...any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.” 2
A tenancy of residential premises is a right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent. 3
The agreement states that “The lessee is leasing the second house at 91 Kirk Road” and “The lessee and maximum one more person are allowed to live on the premises.” 4 The schedule to the agreement records, “Permitted use - Residential living and possible home based business as long as it complies with all government regulations.”
This agreement allows the tenant to live in the premises in consideration for rent. It is a residential tenancy.
Some residential tenancies are excluded from the RTA. The landlord suggests that this arrangement is excluded because the premises are commercial premises 5 . The landlord says that the understanding was always that the property would be used by the tenant, who has horses, mostly for that purpose 1 S.4 RTA 2 S.2 RTA 3 S.2 RTA 4 Clause 7.2 5 S.5(1)(a) RTA with her being able to stay over on occasion. He says that when he became aware the tenant intended to live there as her principal home he offered to end the tenancy.
The tenant says that was never agreed. Her evidence is that the property was presented as bare land with a 2 bedroom relocatable home, provided with beds in both bedrooms and set up as a residence.
The evidence persuades me that the premises were set up for residential occupation, the agreement allowed residential occupation and the rent was charged accordingly. Neither s.5(1)(a) nor any other exclusion applies and this is a residential tenancy to which the RTA applies. Compensation
The off grid solar supply, in particular the battery storage capacity, has proved entirely inadequate for residential occupation of the premises. The tenant had a week with no electricity at all. Her use of the premises since early May has been constrained by the lack of electrical supply. She has incurred the costs associated with running a generator to top up the electricity supply.
The tenant wants to end the tenancy and claims compensation for a week’s rent when she effectively could not occupy the premises, the cost of petrol for the generator and compensation of 30% of the rent paid since 5 May. The landlord does not oppose those claims. Bond
A bond of $990.00 was paid. It was not lodged with the Bond Centre.
The landlord agrees that it should be repaid to the tenant.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 6
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 7
By not lodging the tenant’s bond the landlord has 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 6 S.19(1) RTA 7 S. 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest 8 .
The landlord says that the bond was not lodged because of his genuine belief that this was not a tenancy subject to the RTA.
When it comes to assessing intention it is the act itself ie. not lodging the bond, that needs to be intentional, not an intention to act unlawfully. Mistaken belief is not a defence 9 .
The landlord is a very experienced property manager. He agrees that he proceeded on the basis of his own assumptions and took no advice about the likely legal status of the arrangement. The tenant challenged that assumption, with correct reasons and challenged the landlord’s decision not to lodge the bond but the bond remains held by the landlord. Those are exacerbating factors.
There has been no direct loss caused to the tenant who will have her bond refunded but she has been put in the position of having to pursue these proceedings without the security of knowing the bond is properly and independently held. This has been a short lived arrangement.
While not a defence, I accept the landlord may genuinely have believed the RTA did not apply to this agreement.
Weighing those considerations I find that a significant award of exemplary damages, half of the maximum specified, would be just. Healthy Homes standards
The agreement provides the tenant no information about the premises’ insulation or Healthy Homes compliance. There is no dispute that Healthy Homes compliance standards are not met for these premises.
If a landlord fails to ensure that residential rental properties comply with HH standards, they commit an unlawful act 10 . Exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded for each breach 11 , although here, each breach of the obligation to meet a relevant standard, resulted from the same fundamental failure to recognise that the premises were covered by the RTA. A separate award of exemplary damages for each of the HH standards that was not met would not be just.
Again, the landlord took no steps, beyond his own assumption, to check that the premises needed to be compliant. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the 8 S.19(3) RTA 9 see Rawstorne v Westside Management Limited [2021] NZDC 14114 10 S.45(1)(bb) and (1A) RTA 11 Schedule 1A RTA landlord knew the premises should not be occupied for residential rental purposes, so called it a commercial lease to avoid those obligations.
The consequence for the tenant is that she took on a tenancy, for a year, of premises that turned out to be effectively unliveable. I take into account that this was a relatively short situation and that the landlord agreed to the fixed term tenancy being ended.
I take into account the compensatory awards made.
Fundamentally though, the landlord’s actions have caused for the tenant significant disruption, stress and discomfort through the premises unfitness for residential occupation. Relocation costs and inconvenience have been incurred.
Again, I find that an award of half of the maximum exemplary damages specified would be just.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5507370 — Exemplary damages at 91B Kirk Road, Templeton, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5507370 — Exemplary damages at 91B Kirk Road, Templeton, Christchurch 8042

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