What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4922413?

The tribunal order states: Amac Investments Limited and Andre Mackie must pay Devon-Leigh Patricia

How much money was awarded in case 4922413?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4922413?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11683979-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4922413?

The tribunal order states: Amac Investments Limited and Andre Mackie must pay Devon-Leigh Patricia

How much money was awarded in case 4922413?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4922413?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11683979-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

153 Fitzgerald Avenue, Christchurch Central, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4922413 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4922413 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – failure to comply with section 45 RTA landlord responsibilities	$2,500.00	Compensation – failure to comply with section 45 RTA landlord responsibilities
Exemplary damages – non-lodgement of bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages – non-lodgement of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Order

Amac Investments Limited and Andre Mackie must pay Devon-Leigh Patricia Richardson and Callum Foulds $3,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 April 2025. Mr Mackie, a director of the landlord company, represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started in April 2022 and ended on 20 June 2024.
Soon after the tenancy ended the tenants made their application. The landlord’s cross application was not filed until 30 September 2024, one day before another adjudicator held a directions conference.
Both parties have provided documentary evidence, and both gave oral evidence at the hearing. I have considered all the evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Directions conference
At the directions conference on 1 October 2024, the adjudicator set out the issues and directed that no amendments would be accepted unless filed at least 14 days before the scheduled hearing. A further direction was made that any additional evidence be filed no later than 7 days before the hearing. Issues
The issues on the tenants’ application are: •Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition? (compensation) •Did the landlord fail to provide a key for the front door? (compensation) •Did the landlord fail to meet its/his responsibilities under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to ensure the premises were compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and by failing to repair and maintain the premises? (compensation) •Should the tenants be reimbursed cleaning costs and the replacement cost of chattels? •Exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The issues on the landlord’s application are: •Should the landlord receive compensation for carpet cleaning and carpet replacement? •Should the landlord receive compensation for cleaning, repairs, and rubbish removal? Relevant legal principles Statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 19 RTA sets out a landlord’s duties on receipt of the bond. The bond must be paid to the Bond Centre within 23 working-days after the payment is made. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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. They are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion
The landlord is stated to be AMAC Investments Limited as the agent for the owner in the application. The tenancy agreement the tenant produced in evidence records the landlord as AMAC Investments Ltd. I have named both the company and Mr Mackie, a director, as the landlord in this case as Mr Mackie was the landlord for all intents and purposes. Findings on the tenant’s application
The tenants provided a substantial written statement addressing their concerns from the start of the tenancy and during it.
The tenants described how the extraction fan in the main bathroom was inadequate and fell from the window when it was windy. They said there was no extraction fan in the laundry bathroom. And the kitchen extraction fan was not vented to the exterior.
The tenants said some windows were broken and draughts entered through the windows. There were holes in the floor; the toilet was insecure and leaked sewage; and there were electrical issues – sockets in the bathroom, laundry and a bedroom were insecure and caused the tenants electric shocks.
The tenants said the stove had only one working element and the oven was so dirty it was beyond cleaning. And a fridge had to be replaced. They purchased the new stove and fridge.
The tenants described on-going issues with mould and with rat droppings, present from the start of the tenancy. They said the mould became so bad in one of the bathrooms they boarded it up.
The tenants said the landlord failed to provide a key to one of the front doors.
The landlord said that most of the issues raised were never brought to his attention. I do not accept that. The tenant produced text messages between her and Mr Mackie that confirm he was aware of the repair, cleaning, and maintenance issues.
The landlord confirmed that he did no regular inspections.
Mr Mackie said he had the premises assessed for HHS compliance after the tenancy ended. He produced the report. I queried him as to how he knew the premises were HHS compliant at the start of the tenancy. He said he assessed the premises himself using the Tenancy Services form, but he was unable to produce the assessment in evidence. He confirmed that between the end of the tenancy and the HHS assessment he had professionally done, he had completed some work at the premises.
The landlord confirmed that the HHS assessment he did was not attached to the tenancy agreement. He said he accepted that there would have been water ingress, but then suggested it might have been dry rot that caused marks to appear.
From the photographic and other evidence the tenants provided I find that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; did not attend to repair and maintenance issues as he should have; and did not comply with the HHS.
His later efforts to ensure HHS compliance are commendable, but the premises should have been compliant at the start of this tenancy. By his own admission he accepted that there were draughts and leakage in a southerly wind leading to the ingress of water. Given the holes in the floor shown in the photos, I can infer that other HHS breaches occurred too.
That appliances were provided as part of the tenancy (the fridge and stove) means that they should have been repaired or replaced at the landlord’s cost, not the tenants’.
The tenants have not applied for exemplary damages, other than for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, which I will address next. However, I find that the tenants experienced a considerable loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s section 45 RTA breaches (all of which are considered together).
The tenants produced no receipts for the purchase of the fridge and chattels, nor for clothing and other chattels damaged by mould, nor for cleaning products. They would have been entitled to keep the fridge and the stove as they purchased them.
For the tenants’ loss of use and enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition, repair and maintain the premises, and comply with the HHS I award the tenants compensation of $2,500.00. This includes any issues arising from the confusing situation with the front door they described – there were 2 doors, one of which had no key.
The tenants sought a large amount of compensation in their application. The amount sought was unrealistic. The tenants could have acted sooner by issuing 14-day breach notices, and, if necessary, applying to the Tribunal for orders. The tenants said they were young and that this was their first tenancy. But at age 20, they are considered adults and could have taken advice sooner and acted on it.
There are some matters the Tribunal cannot address. The tenants said that persons unknown to them, but known to previous tenants, who seem to have had criminal links, kept visiting the property. That was not within the landlord’s control. Nor the fact that unknown persons would dump rubbish on the section. And the Tribunal cannot address issues between the tenants and a neighbouring tenant’s boyfriend.
The landlord admitted he did not lodge the bond. He said he forgot to.
The landlord manages 2 properties and has a property manager for his other properties. He has been a landlord for 10 years he said.
So, the landlord is experienced and should know his statutory responsibilities.
I find that the criteria for exemplary damages are met in this case.
The failure to lodge a bond is a defined unlawful act for which the Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to $1,500.00. I award the tenants exemplary damages of $500.00. Findings on the landlord’s application
I dismiss the landlord’s application. Even if the tenants failed to leave the premises reasonably clean, the way the premises were provided must be considered as well.
Damage caused by mould was likely due to the condition of the premises and the fact they were not HHS compliant.
A landlord has a duty to keep proper records. Here, the landlord could not provide the tenancy agreement, the initial property inspection report, nor any photos from the start of the tenancy.
Although the landlord states he was not made aware of some (most) of the issues, I find that the tenants did bring repair, maintenance, and cleaning issues to his attention. Had he carried out inspections as any prudent landlord would, he should have been aware of the extent of the problems the tenants were describing.
The landlord refunded the tenants’ bond in full. He sent a message to them saying Again I thank you for your tenancy and I wish you guys all the best. Don’t be shy if you ever see me in a bar...And after getting possession of the premises, while mentioning that the house had not been handed back that great, he said Over all you’ve been great tenants that have always paid as far as I’ve seen and as u’ve said u haven’t complained about anything.
These actions do not support a claim for the breaches by the tenants the landlord alleges.
The landlord has not proved that any rubbish at the premises was left there by these tenants, given the evidence that random people would dump rubbish on the section. Without entry photos, I cannot find that the work to the interior of the premises was required due to breaches by these tenants, breaches by former tenants, or by neglected repairs and maintenance. The invoice for these costs (cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs) is dated 30 September 2024. The tenancy ended on 20 June 2024.
It is not logically consistent for the landlord to refund the tenants their bond, send them messages thanking them for being great tenants, and then making an application so long after the tenancy ended, and apparently in response to the tenants’ application about to go to hearing.
The landlord might well be disappointed with the result, but he needs to be aware that the tenants could have applied for exemplary damages for these breaches (and for other breaches such as the failure to include all required information in the tenancy agreement) in which case the amounts awarded against him might have been significantly more. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants compensation of $2,500.00 for breaches of its/his section 45 RTA responsibilities – failure to maintain and repair, to provide the premises reasonably clean, and failure to comply with the HHS.
The landlord will pay exemplary damages of $500.00 for its/his failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord will pay the tenants’ filing fee.
In total, the landlord will pay the tenants $3,020.44.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4922413 — net $3,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – failure to comply with section 45 RTA landlord responsibilities	$2,500.00	Compensation – failure to comply with section 45 RTA landlord responsibilities
Exemplary damages – non-lodgement of bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages – non-lodgement of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,020.44

Order

Amac Investments Limited and Andre Mackie must pay Devon-Leigh Patricia Richardson and Callum Foulds $3,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 April 2025. Mr Mackie, a director of the landlord company, represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started in April 2022 and ended on 20 June 2024.
Soon after the tenancy ended the tenants made their application. The landlord’s cross application was not filed until 30 September 2024, one day before another adjudicator held a directions conference.
Both parties have provided documentary evidence, and both gave oral evidence at the hearing. I have considered all the evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Directions conference
At the directions conference on 1 October 2024, the adjudicator set out the issues and directed that no amendments would be accepted unless filed at least 14 days before the scheduled hearing. A further direction was made that any additional evidence be filed no later than 7 days before the hearing. Issues
The issues on the tenants’ application are: •Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition? (compensation) •Did the landlord fail to provide a key for the front door? (compensation) •Did the landlord fail to meet its/his responsibilities under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to ensure the premises were compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and by failing to repair and maintain the premises? (compensation) •Should the tenants be reimbursed cleaning costs and the replacement cost of chattels? •Exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The issues on the landlord’s application are: •Should the landlord receive compensation for carpet cleaning and carpet replacement? •Should the landlord receive compensation for cleaning, repairs, and rubbish removal? Relevant legal principles Statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 19 RTA sets out a landlord’s duties on receipt of the bond. The bond must be paid to the Bond Centre within 23 working-days after the payment is made. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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. They are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion
The landlord is stated to be AMAC Investments Limited as the agent for the owner in the application. The tenancy agreement the tenant produced in evidence records the landlord as AMAC Investments Ltd. I have named both the company and Mr Mackie, a director, as the landlord in this case as Mr Mackie was the landlord for all intents and purposes. Findings on the tenant’s application
The tenants provided a substantial written statement addressing their concerns from the start of the tenancy and during it.
The tenants described how the extraction fan in the main bathroom was inadequate and fell from the window when it was windy. They said there was no extraction fan in the laundry bathroom. And the kitchen extraction fan was not vented to the exterior.
The tenants said some windows were broken and draughts entered through the windows. There were holes in the floor; the toilet was insecure and leaked sewage; and there were electrical issues – sockets in the bathroom, laundry and a bedroom were insecure and caused the tenants electric shocks.
The tenants said the stove had only one working element and the oven was so dirty it was beyond cleaning. And a fridge had to be replaced. They purchased the new stove and fridge.
The tenants described on-going issues with mould and with rat droppings, present from the start of the tenancy. They said the mould became so bad in one of the bathrooms they boarded it up.
The tenants said the landlord failed to provide a key to one of the front doors.
The landlord said that most of the issues raised were never brought to his attention. I do not accept that. The tenant produced text messages between her and Mr Mackie that confirm he was aware of the repair, cleaning, and maintenance issues.
The landlord confirmed that he did no regular inspections.
Mr Mackie said he had the premises assessed for HHS compliance after the tenancy ended. He produced the report. I queried him as to how he knew the premises were HHS compliant at the start of the tenancy. He said he assessed the premises himself using the Tenancy Services form, but he was unable to produce the assessment in evidence. He confirmed that between the end of the tenancy and the HHS assessment he had professionally done, he had completed some work at the premises.
The landlord confirmed that the HHS assessment he did was not attached to the tenancy agreement. He said he accepted that there would have been water ingress, but then suggested it might have been dry rot that caused marks to appear.
From the photographic and other evidence the tenants provided I find that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; did not attend to repair and maintenance issues as he should have; and did not comply with the HHS.
His later efforts to ensure HHS compliance are commendable, but the premises should have been compliant at the start of this tenancy. By his own admission he accepted that there were draughts and leakage in a southerly wind leading to the ingress of water. Given the holes in the floor shown in the photos, I can infer that other HHS breaches occurred too.
That appliances were provided as part of the tenancy (the fridge and stove) means that they should have been repaired or replaced at the landlord’s cost, not the tenants’.
The tenants have not applied for exemplary damages, other than for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, which I will address next. However, I find that the tenants experienced a considerable loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s section 45 RTA breaches (all of which are considered together).
The tenants produced no receipts for the purchase of the fridge and chattels, nor for clothing and other chattels damaged by mould, nor for cleaning products. They would have been entitled to keep the fridge and the stove as they purchased them.
For the tenants’ loss of use and enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition, repair and maintain the premises, and comply with the HHS I award the tenants compensation of $2,500.00. This includes any issues arising from the confusing situation with the front door they described – there were 2 doors, one of which had no key.
The tenants sought a large amount of compensation in their application. The amount sought was unrealistic. The tenants could have acted sooner by issuing 14-day breach notices, and, if necessary, applying to the Tribunal for orders. The tenants said they were young and that this was their first tenancy. But at age 20, they are considered adults and could have taken advice sooner and acted on it.
There are some matters the Tribunal cannot address. The tenants said that persons unknown to them, but known to previous tenants, who seem to have had criminal links, kept visiting the property. That was not within the landlord’s control. Nor the fact that unknown persons would dump rubbish on the section. And the Tribunal cannot address issues between the tenants and a neighbouring tenant’s boyfriend.
The landlord admitted he did not lodge the bond. He said he forgot to.
The landlord manages 2 properties and has a property manager for his other properties. He has been a landlord for 10 years he said.
So, the landlord is experienced and should know his statutory responsibilities.
I find that the criteria for exemplary damages are met in this case.
The failure to lodge a bond is a defined unlawful act for which the Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to $1,500.00. I award the tenants exemplary damages of $500.00. Findings on the landlord’s application
I dismiss the landlord’s application. Even if the tenants failed to leave the premises reasonably clean, the way the premises were provided must be considered as well.
Damage caused by mould was likely due to the condition of the premises and the fact they were not HHS compliant.
A landlord has a duty to keep proper records. Here, the landlord could not provide the tenancy agreement, the initial property inspection report, nor any photos from the start of the tenancy.
Although the landlord states he was not made aware of some (most) of the issues, I find that the tenants did bring repair, maintenance, and cleaning issues to his attention. Had he carried out inspections as any prudent landlord would, he should have been aware of the extent of the problems the tenants were describing.
The landlord refunded the tenants’ bond in full. He sent a message to them saying Again I thank you for your tenancy and I wish you guys all the best. Don’t be shy if you ever see me in a bar...And after getting possession of the premises, while mentioning that the house had not been handed back that great, he said Over all you’ve been great tenants that have always paid as far as I’ve seen and as u’ve said u haven’t complained about anything.
These actions do not support a claim for the breaches by the tenants the landlord alleges.
The landlord has not proved that any rubbish at the premises was left there by these tenants, given the evidence that random people would dump rubbish on the section. Without entry photos, I cannot find that the work to the interior of the premises was required due to breaches by these tenants, breaches by former tenants, or by neglected repairs and maintenance. The invoice for these costs (cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs) is dated 30 September 2024. The tenancy ended on 20 June 2024.
It is not logically consistent for the landlord to refund the tenants their bond, send them messages thanking them for being great tenants, and then making an application so long after the tenancy ended, and apparently in response to the tenants’ application about to go to hearing.
The landlord might well be disappointed with the result, but he needs to be aware that the tenants could have applied for exemplary damages for these breaches (and for other breaches such as the failure to include all required information in the tenancy agreement) in which case the amounts awarded against him might have been significantly more. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants compensation of $2,500.00 for breaches of its/his section 45 RTA responsibilities – failure to maintain and repair, to provide the premises reasonably clean, and failure to comply with the HHS.
The landlord will pay exemplary damages of $500.00 for its/his failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord will pay the tenants’ filing fee.
In total, the landlord will pay the tenants $3,020.44.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922413 — Exemplary damages at 153 Fitzgerald Avenue, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922413 — Exemplary damages at 153 Fitzgerald Avenue, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

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