What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5104448?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case. Each party has

How much money was awarded in case 5104448?

Compensation: Tap And Gas Hob: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5104448?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5104448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11343141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5104448?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case. Each party has

How much money was awarded in case 5104448?

Compensation: Tap And Gas Hob: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5104448?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5104448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11343141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

406B Lascelles Street, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5104448 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5104448 — net $4,250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2025	$6,800.00		Rent arrears to 24 January 2025
Exemplary damages: deficient agreement		$750.00	deficient agreement
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond		$750.00	fail to lodge bond
Compensation: tap and gas hob		$300.00	tap and gas hob
Exemplary damages: smoke alarms		$750.00	smoke alarms
Total award	$6,800.00	$2,550.00
Net award	$4,250.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,250.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case. Each party has been found to be in breach of their obligations so the grounds for suppression are not made out.
The tenancy of Angela Simmonds at 406B Lascelles Street, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120 is terminated, and possession is granted to Jasleen Kaur, at 11:59pm on Friday 7 February 2025.
Angela Simmons must pay the usual weekly rent of $825.00 no later than Saturday 25 January 2025 and each Saturday thereafter until the tenancy ends. If any such payment is not made by the due date, the tenancy of Angela Simmons at 406B Lascelles Street, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120 will end immediately, with possession returning to Jasleen Kaur.
Angela Simmonds must pay Jasleen Kaur $4,250.00 as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by phone and was represented at the hearing by her sister Ratinder Kaur, who was also primarily involved in managing the tenancy. Background
The parties signed a tenancy agreement on 9 August 2024 creating a periodic tenancy starting on that date, at a rent of $825.00 per week.
The form of tenancy agreement chosen by the landlord fundamentally conflicts with many of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). It does not provide important information that tenants are entitled to be provided with about the tenancy.
A bond of $3,000.00 was paid. $1,500.00 of the bond was paid to the Bond Centre on 22 October 2024. The remaining $1,500.00 was paid to the Bond Centre on 23 December 2023.
At an inspection on 30 November 2024, the landlord told the tenant that her circumstances had changed and that the tenant would have to vacate the premises by 20 January 2025. A later, undated notice from the landlord to the tenant states, “....this is to confirm that the notice was given for end of the tenancy in the 30 Nov initially we gave till 20/01/2025. But then we have checked with tenancy tribunal it should be 63 days of notice. Your notice starts from 30/11/2024 to 02/02/2025....” The claims
The tenant filed her application on 11 December 2024. She seeks compensation and/ or exemplary damages for: a. breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide Healthy Homes information and for non-compliance with Healthy Homes standards; b. breach of the obligation to comply with smoke alarm requirements; c. failure to lodge the bond; d. failure to attend to necessary repairs/ maintenance; e. wrongful termination of the tenancy.
The landlord’s cross application was filed on 17 December 2024. The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the basis that notice of termination was given and due to the extent of the rent arrears owed. The Agreement
As noted, the agreement contains a number of provisions contrary to the RTA and which are therefore unenforceable.
Section 13A RTA requires that the agreement contain important information about the tenancy including: a. an insulation statement; b. a healthy homes compliance statement; c. insurance information.
In each case, failure to provide that information is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
The agreement contained none of that information. The landlord therefore 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 regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In that context it is the parties’ intent to commit the act, not an intention to act unlawfully, that is relevant.
Here, there is no apparent reason for the landlord’s failure to provide that information, apart from her lack of awareness of her obligations as a landlord. That is reflected in the other ways in which the agreement does not reflect the parties’ rights and entitlements under the RTA, and the landlord’s errors in dealing with the tenant’s bond.
If a separate award of exemplary damages were made for each breach, it would risk multiple penalties being given for what is, in effect, a single fundamental breach. That being so I find that a single award of exemplary damages but of the maximum available, to recognise the extent of the breach, would be just. Healthy Homes Standards
As this was a general tenancy starting on 9 August 2024, the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the premises comply with Healthy Homes standards within 120 days of the tenancy starting.
The tenant believes that the premises do not comply with those standards but has not provided evidence proving that to be the case.
The landlord believes the premises do comply but is not familiar with the Healthy Homes standards or what they require and has no real basis for that belief.
This is the tenant’s application, so the onus is on her to provide evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). While it is of concern that the landlord has taken no steps to understand what the Healthy Homes standards entail or assess the premises’ compliance with those standards, I do not find it proved that the premises did not comply when required. Smoke Alarms
Section 45(1)(ba) RTA requires that the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under it.
Those regulations require that every installed smoke alarm be a qualifying alarm and there must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed in or within 3 metres of every sleeping space
The parties agree that there is one smoke alarm at the premises. The landlord says she believes it complies but again is unable to provide any basis for that belief. The tenant says that one smoke alarm is insufficient and the one that is installed is very old and not currently compliant.
The limited evidence available satisfies me, on balance, that the one old smoke alarm installed in the premises does not meet the landlord’s obligations and I find that an unlawful act has been committed.
Again, there is no evidence justifying the breach apart from the landlord being unaware of her obligations. Without more comprehensive evidence enabling me to assess the extent of non-compliance and in the absence of evidence that the concerns the tenant raises now, were brought to the landlord’s attention earlier, I find that only a modest award of exemplary damages (against the maximum of $7,200.00) would be just. Bond
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.
The landlord did not meet that obligation and has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord says that she was not aware of the obligation to lodge the bond and when the tenant said she needed to, the landlord was confused between lodging the bond and registering as a supplier with WINZ which the tenant wanted her to do so WINZ could pay the rent direct to the landlord.
The landlord also says that the tenant then agreed that only ½ of the bond could be lodged because arrears had arisen at that time. She asserts that Tenancy Services told her that she could pay the remainder of the bond in instalments – although it remains unclear to me why the landlord would have wanted to pay it in instalments, when she had received the whole of the tenant’s bond and it should have been immediately available to pay to the Bond Centre.
The tenant says that when she told the landlord that the bond needed to be lodged, the landlord said she would not lodge it.
What is clear is that the tenant’s bond was not lodged when it ought to havhe been. The tenant noted in a txt on 16 September 2024, “...and the last thing I spoke to you about was my bond being lodged – which you have said has not been done and that it will not be done as you are not registered to rent.”
Even after that reminder, only ½ of the bond was lodged and not until over a month later.
I do take into account that no actual loss has been caused the tenant and the whole of the bond is now lodged.
In those circumstance I find that an award of exemplary damages of 50% of the maximum would b just. Repair and Maintenance issues
The tenant says that when the tenancy began, two of the four gas elements were not working and there was a leak in the kitchen tap.
The landlord made some attempts to have those problems fixed but the evidence satisfies me that as at the date of the hearing, only two of the gas elements are still properly useable and the tap is dripping more than at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord suggests that the tenant is at fault for not following up on the tradespeople who were meant to be doing the repairs, but the tenants obligation is to tell the landlord about a need for repair (s.40(1)(d)). It is the landlord’s obligation to ensure the premises are kept in a reasonable state of repair (s.45(1)(b).
I find on balance that the landlord breached that obligation and failure to address those repair issues resulted in undue inconvenience to the tenant for which a small award of compensation is fair.
I am not satisfied that in the circumstance it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages for that breach. Notice of Termination
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 that obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The landlord’s evidence is that she wants to move back in to the premises. For her to terminate the tenancy on that basis she would be required to give 63 days’ notice of termination. She did not do so. She could not “fix” the notice by giving more time, without the consent of the tenant or Order of the Tribunal (see s.51(7)).
A valid notice must, be in writing, identify the premises to which it relates, specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises, set out the reasons for the termination; and be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.
The evidence does not show that notice of termination was given complying with those requirements and the tenancy has not been validly ended by notice.
I am satisfied however that the landlord does intend to return to live in the premises, which is a valid ground for giving notice to end a periodic residential tenancy. Accordingly, while the notice(s) the landlord gave were not effective, I do not find that the landlord has breached s.60AA. Termination for Rent Arrears
It is not disputed that rent arears of $6,800.00 are owed as at Friday 24 January 2025.
Even offsetting the awards made in the tenant’s favour in this Order, the remaining arrears are well in excess of 21 days’ rent.
In terms of s.55(1)(a), where rent is more than 21 days in arears at the date of hearing the Tribunal must make either a termination or conditional termination Order.
IT seems clear from the evidence that the level of rent payable for these premises is not manageable for the tenant so I could not have confidence that if the tenancy was not terminated, the arrears could be paid within a reasonable time or that further rent arrears would be unlikely (see s.55(1A)).
That being so, the Tribunal needs to make an Order terminating the tenancy.
I find it fair to make the termination date the date the landlord requires the premises for her use, so long as the rent is paid when due until then so the arrears do not increase in the meantime.
The landlord prefers that no Order be made for release of the bond at this time.
Each party had had claims upheld an no order is made in respect of the filing fee

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5104448 — net $4,250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2025	$6,800.00		Rent arrears to 24 January 2025
Exemplary damages: deficient agreement		$750.00	deficient agreement
Exemplary damages: fail to lodge bond		$750.00	fail to lodge bond
Compensation: tap and gas hob		$300.00	tap and gas hob
Exemplary damages: smoke alarms		$750.00	smoke alarms
Total award	$6,800.00	$2,550.00
Net award	$4,250.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,250.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case. Each party has been found to be in breach of their obligations so the grounds for suppression are not made out.
The tenancy of Angela Simmonds at 406B Lascelles Street, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120 is terminated, and possession is granted to Jasleen Kaur, at 11:59pm on Friday 7 February 2025.
Angela Simmons must pay the usual weekly rent of $825.00 no later than Saturday 25 January 2025 and each Saturday thereafter until the tenancy ends. If any such payment is not made by the due date, the tenancy of Angela Simmons at 406B Lascelles Street, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120 will end immediately, with possession returning to Jasleen Kaur.
Angela Simmonds must pay Jasleen Kaur $4,250.00 as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by phone and was represented at the hearing by her sister Ratinder Kaur, who was also primarily involved in managing the tenancy. Background
The parties signed a tenancy agreement on 9 August 2024 creating a periodic tenancy starting on that date, at a rent of $825.00 per week.
The form of tenancy agreement chosen by the landlord fundamentally conflicts with many of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). It does not provide important information that tenants are entitled to be provided with about the tenancy.
A bond of $3,000.00 was paid. $1,500.00 of the bond was paid to the Bond Centre on 22 October 2024. The remaining $1,500.00 was paid to the Bond Centre on 23 December 2023.
At an inspection on 30 November 2024, the landlord told the tenant that her circumstances had changed and that the tenant would have to vacate the premises by 20 January 2025. A later, undated notice from the landlord to the tenant states, “....this is to confirm that the notice was given for end of the tenancy in the 30 Nov initially we gave till 20/01/2025. But then we have checked with tenancy tribunal it should be 63 days of notice. Your notice starts from 30/11/2024 to 02/02/2025....” The claims
The tenant filed her application on 11 December 2024. She seeks compensation and/ or exemplary damages for: a. breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide Healthy Homes information and for non-compliance with Healthy Homes standards; b. breach of the obligation to comply with smoke alarm requirements; c. failure to lodge the bond; d. failure to attend to necessary repairs/ maintenance; e. wrongful termination of the tenancy.
The landlord’s cross application was filed on 17 December 2024. The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the basis that notice of termination was given and due to the extent of the rent arrears owed. The Agreement
As noted, the agreement contains a number of provisions contrary to the RTA and which are therefore unenforceable.
Section 13A RTA requires that the agreement contain important information about the tenancy including: a. an insulation statement; b. a healthy homes compliance statement; c. insurance information.
In each case, failure to provide that information is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
The agreement contained none of that information. The landlord therefore 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 regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In that context it is the parties’ intent to commit the act, not an intention to act unlawfully, that is relevant.
Here, there is no apparent reason for the landlord’s failure to provide that information, apart from her lack of awareness of her obligations as a landlord. That is reflected in the other ways in which the agreement does not reflect the parties’ rights and entitlements under the RTA, and the landlord’s errors in dealing with the tenant’s bond.
If a separate award of exemplary damages were made for each breach, it would risk multiple penalties being given for what is, in effect, a single fundamental breach. That being so I find that a single award of exemplary damages but of the maximum available, to recognise the extent of the breach, would be just. Healthy Homes Standards
As this was a general tenancy starting on 9 August 2024, the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the premises comply with Healthy Homes standards within 120 days of the tenancy starting.
The tenant believes that the premises do not comply with those standards but has not provided evidence proving that to be the case.
The landlord believes the premises do comply but is not familiar with the Healthy Homes standards or what they require and has no real basis for that belief.
This is the tenant’s application, so the onus is on her to provide evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). While it is of concern that the landlord has taken no steps to understand what the Healthy Homes standards entail or assess the premises’ compliance with those standards, I do not find it proved that the premises did not comply when required. Smoke Alarms
Section 45(1)(ba) RTA requires that the landlord comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under it.
Those regulations require that every installed smoke alarm be a qualifying alarm and there must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed in or within 3 metres of every sleeping space
The parties agree that there is one smoke alarm at the premises. The landlord says she believes it complies but again is unable to provide any basis for that belief. The tenant says that one smoke alarm is insufficient and the one that is installed is very old and not currently compliant.
The limited evidence available satisfies me, on balance, that the one old smoke alarm installed in the premises does not meet the landlord’s obligations and I find that an unlawful act has been committed.
Again, there is no evidence justifying the breach apart from the landlord being unaware of her obligations. Without more comprehensive evidence enabling me to assess the extent of non-compliance and in the absence of evidence that the concerns the tenant raises now, were brought to the landlord’s attention earlier, I find that only a modest award of exemplary damages (against the maximum of $7,200.00) would be just. Bond
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.
The landlord did not meet that obligation and has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord says that she was not aware of the obligation to lodge the bond and when the tenant said she needed to, the landlord was confused between lodging the bond and registering as a supplier with WINZ which the tenant wanted her to do so WINZ could pay the rent direct to the landlord.
The landlord also says that the tenant then agreed that only ½ of the bond could be lodged because arrears had arisen at that time. She asserts that Tenancy Services told her that she could pay the remainder of the bond in instalments – although it remains unclear to me why the landlord would have wanted to pay it in instalments, when she had received the whole of the tenant’s bond and it should have been immediately available to pay to the Bond Centre.
The tenant says that when she told the landlord that the bond needed to be lodged, the landlord said she would not lodge it.
What is clear is that the tenant’s bond was not lodged when it ought to havhe been. The tenant noted in a txt on 16 September 2024, “...and the last thing I spoke to you about was my bond being lodged – which you have said has not been done and that it will not be done as you are not registered to rent.”
Even after that reminder, only ½ of the bond was lodged and not until over a month later.
I do take into account that no actual loss has been caused the tenant and the whole of the bond is now lodged.
In those circumstance I find that an award of exemplary damages of 50% of the maximum would b just. Repair and Maintenance issues
The tenant says that when the tenancy began, two of the four gas elements were not working and there was a leak in the kitchen tap.
The landlord made some attempts to have those problems fixed but the evidence satisfies me that as at the date of the hearing, only two of the gas elements are still properly useable and the tap is dripping more than at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord suggests that the tenant is at fault for not following up on the tradespeople who were meant to be doing the repairs, but the tenants obligation is to tell the landlord about a need for repair (s.40(1)(d)). It is the landlord’s obligation to ensure the premises are kept in a reasonable state of repair (s.45(1)(b).
I find on balance that the landlord breached that obligation and failure to address those repair issues resulted in undue inconvenience to the tenant for which a small award of compensation is fair.
I am not satisfied that in the circumstance it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages for that breach. Notice of Termination
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 that obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The landlord’s evidence is that she wants to move back in to the premises. For her to terminate the tenancy on that basis she would be required to give 63 days’ notice of termination. She did not do so. She could not “fix” the notice by giving more time, without the consent of the tenant or Order of the Tribunal (see s.51(7)).
A valid notice must, be in writing, identify the premises to which it relates, specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises, set out the reasons for the termination; and be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.
The evidence does not show that notice of termination was given complying with those requirements and the tenancy has not been validly ended by notice.
I am satisfied however that the landlord does intend to return to live in the premises, which is a valid ground for giving notice to end a periodic residential tenancy. Accordingly, while the notice(s) the landlord gave were not effective, I do not find that the landlord has breached s.60AA. Termination for Rent Arrears
It is not disputed that rent arears of $6,800.00 are owed as at Friday 24 January 2025.
Even offsetting the awards made in the tenant’s favour in this Order, the remaining arrears are well in excess of 21 days’ rent.
In terms of s.55(1)(a), where rent is more than 21 days in arears at the date of hearing the Tribunal must make either a termination or conditional termination Order.
IT seems clear from the evidence that the level of rent payable for these premises is not manageable for the tenant so I could not have confidence that if the tenancy was not terminated, the arrears could be paid within a reasonable time or that further rent arrears would be unlikely (see s.55(1A)).
That being so, the Tribunal needs to make an Order terminating the tenancy.
I find it fair to make the termination date the date the landlord requires the premises for her use, so long as the rent is paid when due until then so the arrears do not increase in the meantime.
The landlord prefers that no Order be made for release of the bond at this time.
Each party had had claims upheld an no order is made in respect of the filing fee

Tenancy Tribunal case 5104448 — Rent arrears at 406B Lascelles Street, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5104448 — Rent arrears at 406B Lascelles Street, Saint Leonards, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions