What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5164371?

The tribunal order states: Katrina Bunn must pay Tracey Lorigan $1,400.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5164371?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HH Report: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164371?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11664643-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5164371?

The tribunal order states: Katrina Bunn must pay Tracey Lorigan $1,400.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5164371?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HH Report: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164371?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11664643-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Pandora Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5164371 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164371 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00		Exemplary damages
Compensation		$750.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation: HH Report		$150.00	HH Report
Total award	$500.00	$1,900.00
Net award		$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,400.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164371 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00		Exemplary damages
Compensation		$750.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation: HH Report		$150.00	HH Report
Total award	$500.00	$1,900.00
Net award		$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,400.00

Order

Katrina Bunn must pay Tracey Lorigan $1,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Enforcement of this order is stayed until 29 April 2025. The landlord files an application for compensation by then, the stay will continue until the hearing of the application.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 to Tracey Lorigan immediately.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for breach by the landlord of her obligations relating to the condition of the premises, among other things.
The landlord seeks a remedy for the tenant’s failure to allow entry to the premises. Background
The landlord bought the premises in 2019 and the first tenancy of the premises lasted 5 years. This is her only rental property.
Immediately following that tenancy, this tenancy began on 31 July 2024. It ended on 1 April 2025 after the tenant gave a termination notice.
When the landlord granted the tenancy, she said that she believed that the premises complied with the current Healthy Homes (HH) requirements. She completed a HH questionnaire confirming that the premises were compliant. She did not provide that to the tenant at the time, but she confirmed to the tenant that the premises were compliant.
The tenant raised issues concerning the premises during the tenancy although there is little written evidence of that. The landlord caused some work to be done to the premises, but the tenant says that some issues were not addressed property or at all. The landlord said that in some respects the tenant did not make her aware of alleged problems.
The tenant took advice from Tenancy Services who advised her to obtain a HH report which she did. It stated that the premises did not comply with HH requirements in some respects. The landlord disputes some of those findings.
Near the end of the tenancy, the landlord requested access to the premises for viewings. There was some toing and froing between the parties, but they were not able to agree on a time for viewings. The premises have not been relet which is partly due to the landlord needing to bring the premises up to standard. The landlord says that the tenant did not allow access for those works to be done during the tenancy.
There are several claims to consider, and I will first consider the factual basis of the claims and whether there has been a breach in each case and then consider the question of what remedy should be provided. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
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.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to comply with her obligations on receipt of the bond. The tenant paid the bond at the start of the tenancy and the landlord did not lodge it with the Bond Centre until March 2025, after the tenant made her application.
The landlord said that she was not aware that it was compulsory to lodge the bond. The best thing that can be said for the landlord is that she has now lodged the bond.
There has been an unlawful act. Everyone is deemed to know the law and I find it difficult to accept that the landlord believed that lodging the bond is voluntary. She should have been aware that it was a requirement. This is an important obligation because it provides the tenant with security. I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages.
Taking into consideration that the landlord is not a professional landlord and that she has now lodged the bond, an award at the lower end of the scale is appropriate. I have awarded $200. Healthy Homes
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act the premises must be insulated in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. This has applied since 1 July 2019.
The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
The Act also requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, if the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. In this case the landlord assured the tenant that the premises were HH compliant, and they should have been so from the start of the tenancy.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
There is no dispute that the premises have no underfloor insulation or any moisture barrier. There is insulation in the roof cavity. There are some gaps in that insulation, but they are not serious. The situation is a breach of the landlord’s HH’s insulation and moisture obligations.
The landlord said that she believed that the premises complied with HH requirements when she and her husband bought the premises but the there was no apparent basis for that belief. She referred to a building report that she and her husband obtained before they bought the premises, but which was not produced. I note that such a report would not necessarily be looking for non- compliance with tenancy requirements.
The report suggests that the heat pump in the premises might not be sufficient for the living area and that further investigation was needed. That has not been done and I do not have the necessary evidence to make a finding on that issue one way or the other. If follows that this claim has not been proved.
The tenant claims that the front door did not close properly and there were gaps around it that allowed draughts. The door needed some attention early in the tenancy, but the evidence did not satisfy me that significant problems persisted after that work was completed.
There was a hole in the wall in the laundry which has been used to vent the clothes drier. It would have allowed a draught. That should have been covered over. It is no excuse to say that it was put there deliberately. The laundry is not a living area and so the effect it would have on the occupants is small.
The evidence did not prove that the premises suffered from dampness. There was some sign of mould in the laundry but that is likely to have been an historic issue.
There was an extractor fan in the bathroom, but it was covered over. The landlord said that she was not aware of that, and it must have been done by the previous tenant. The tenant was not too concerned because she could open the window to provide ventilation.
It is not necessary to make any award in relation to the fan. There was a fan there and if it concerned the tenant, she could have uncovered it or raised it with the landlord.
The tenant is entitled to compensation for the breaches that have been proved. The main problem was the absence of a vapour barrier and insulation under the premises. It is likely that the premises were colder and more difficult to heat due to that failure. It is difficult on the evidence provided to make a finding as to how much more heating the premises cost the tenant. Taking into consideration the effect of the breach on the tenant’s comfort and the extra cost of heating an award of $600 is appropriate.
There should also be an award of exemplary damages. The breach was an unlawful act and I find that it was intentional. The landlord’s belief that the premises were compliant had no rational basis. She could easily have checked for herself. There is no evidence that she took any steps to ensure that the premises were compliant. This was a short tenancy and an award of $500 is appropriate. Tenancy Agreement
Section 13 of the Act requires the landlord to provide the tenant with a complete copy of the tenancy agreement together with other information about healthy homes and insurance.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750 can be awarded.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to give the tenant a complete copy of the tenancy agreement and the HH statement. The landlord said that there was further information that she needed to complete the HH statement, and she was busy at the time.
I find there has been an unlawful act.
The failure to provide a full tenancy agreement and a HH statement was significant. If the landlord had taken the completion of the statement more seriously, some of the problems that arose may have been avoided. These are important obligations, and a significant award is required. I award $300. Other Breaches
The tenant complained that she was not given a key to the back door and that caused her some problems. She locked herself out of the premises at one time and had to resort to using an angle grinder to get back in. She found that traumatic.
The tenant could have avoided that situation and so I am not minded to hold the landlord responsible for it. But the landlord had promised to provide keys to the doors, and it was a breach not to provide them all.
The tenant gave evidence that the cooker provided with the premises was faulty and that the replacement cooker was also faulty. The landlord accepted that there were some problems with the cookers including some elements not working or not adjustable and a problem with a baking function. The tenant said that she had other means of cooking food and so it was not a major inconvenience.
For these breaches I award compensation of $150. Healthy Homes Report
The tenant was vindicated in getting the HH report and she is therefore entitled to be compensated for the cost of the report. The Landlord’s Claims
The evidence shows that the tenant was unhelpful when it came to providing access to the premises for viewings. She said that she had reasons for that, but I am not satisfied that they were reasonable.
I do not accept that the tenant was in breach by not allowing access for work to be done on the premises. That is because the landlord did not serve a formal notice that she intended to carry out work on a specified date as she was required to do.
I find that the tenant did unreasonably refuse to allow viewings. The landlord offered several dates and time for viewings, and I cannot accept that the tenant had a good reason to refuse them all. She did offer one date and time of her own, but it was not one that was likely to be suitable to prospective tenants. The landlord’s suggestion of a one-hour open home on a Saturday and Sunday was reasonable and the tenant should have accommodated it.
The requirement that the tenant must not unreasonably refuse consent for viewings is important because, without the ability to have viewings during the tenancy, landlords would be hampered finding new tenants. That would adversely landlords and tenants.
It is difficult to assess what effect the tenant’s unreasonableness over viewings will have on the landlord. The landlord is now free to hold viewings and the premises will not be ready for occupation until the premises have been brought up to standard. An appropriate award in my view is $500 compensation.
I find that the tenant was not being intentionally obstructive and so there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages. Filing Fees
Both sides have had some success and so I make no award for the filing fees. Result and Bond
The net result is that the landlord must pay the tenant $1,400. I discussed the bond with the parties, and it is agreed that the landlord’s end of tenancy claims will not exceed the net amount payable by the landlord under this order. I have therefore ordered the bond to be paid to the tenant.
I have ordered a stay of enforcement of the award for 14 days and if the landlord files an application against the tenant within that time the stay will continue until the hearing of the landlord’s application. Otherwise, the award will be payable as soon as the 14 day period ends.
I would encourage the parties to try to resolve any claims the landlord has without coming back to the Tribunal so that this business can be finalised without the stress that it has already caused to them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164371 — Exemplary damages at 33 Pandora Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164371 — Exemplary damages at 33 Pandora Street, North New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

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