What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5165011?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (5053607-004) to Michael

How much money was awarded in case 5165011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5165011?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5165011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11759682-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5165011?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (5053607-004) to Michael

How much money was awarded in case 5165011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5165011?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5165011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11759682-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Birdling Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5165011 — Smoke alarms

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (5053607-004) to Michael (Cameron) Cameron Clarke immediately.
The application for compensation and/or exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Lethbridge and Ms Shaw represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 17 October 2020 and ended on 17 January 2025.
The landlord terminated the tenancy by notice under section 51(2)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) dated 29 October 2024 on the basis that extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises were to be carried out by the landlord or owner within 90 days after the termination date.
The tenant vacated the tenancy although the relationship between the parties deteriorated towards the end of the tenancy, and they did not part ways cordially. The landlord believes that the tenant has acted in retaliation by making this application.
The landlord wanted to deduct costs from the bond for the repair of 3 doors damaged during the tenancy. However, the landlord has not filed any application for costs from the bond.
The tenant filed an application seeking the return of his bond; compensation and/or exemplary damages for the premises not being Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant; and exemplary damages for the alleged unlawful termination of the tenancy. Issues
The issues the Tribunal determine are these: •Is the tenant entitled to his bond? •Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant? •Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy? Relevant legal considerations
Section 22B(2) RTA provides: If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord 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 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • 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.
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. Those factors are: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion

Is the tenant entitled to his bond?

The landlord confirmed that no cross application for costs from the bond has been filed. Section 22B(2) RTA is mandatory. To claim costs from a disputed bond, the landlord must file a Tribunal application setting out its counterclaim.
In the absence of a counterclaim, I must award the bond to the tenant in full.

Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

The tenant alleges that the premises were not compliant with the HHS because there were draughts through the ranch slider doors and the front door, and the gutterings were not free flowing.
The landlord produced evidence of the HHS assessment that was completed shortly before the tenancy started. The report showed areas of non-compliance (ventilation, draught, and smoke alarms) but those matters were remedied within the compliance timeframe.
The tenant said he raised the draft and guttering issues every year (the tenancy lasted 4 years, 3 months) but they were never addressed.
For most of the tenancy, the landlord was another property management company. This landlord took over the management of the tenancy from about September 2024 so was the landlord for about the last 4 months.
The tenant might have confused HHS compliance with repair and maintenance issues.
That Ms Shaw worked for both companies does not make her the landlord; she was the property manager. The 2 property management companies were the landlord at different times as agent for the owner.
The tenant produced no evidence that the premises were not HHS compliant. If he alleges that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises, he can make an application against his former landlord since it was the landlord for the majority of the time he alleges a failure to maintain and repair.
The Tribunal received no evidence that the landlord named in this application (LREMGMT Limited) failed in its obligations for the short period while it was the landlord.
Without some objective evidence that the premises were not HHS compliant, the Tribunal cannot award compensation and/or exemplary damages for this landlord’s breach of its statutory responsibilities.

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

The landlord’s termination notice referred to the owners wanting to undertake renovations.
Section 51(2)(f) RTA refers to the landlord being able to terminate a tenancy on 90-days’ notice if extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work in undertaken. The timeframe for the work is then prescribed.
So, the landlord’s notice to terminate did not address the correct statutory requirements. But the word renovate is like refurbish, so nothing turns on that.
Ms Shaw made the unusual submission that because the tenancy started in 2020 the law at that time continued to apply, meaning that the landlord could terminate the tenancy without cause. That is not correct.
Section 51(2) RTA was replaced on 11 February 2021 by section 32(1) of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020. It was part of changes to residential tenancy law enacted by Parliament at the time some of which were to provide greater tenant protection.
Landlords need to exercise care when relying on section 51(2)(f) RTA to terminate tenancies. It is not a convenient alternative to ending tenancies that might not otherwise be able to be ended. Parliament enacted the provision for a reason – a balance between a tenant’s tenure and a landlord’s/owner’s right to refurbish, redevelop, alter, and repair.
The work in this case comprised the painting and renovation of the interior of the premises so the premises might attract a higher rent.
Section 51(2)(f) RTA is silent about the motivation for the work. The focus is on the work that was done.
By a fine margin I accept that the full repainting of the interior of the premises would meet the definition of extensive refurbishment. The word ‘extensive’ is not defined in the RTA. The ordinary dictionary definition of extensive is ‘covering or affecting a large area’.
And while the tenant said he would have been willing to remain in possession while the work was done, I accept that it would not have been reasonably practicable, given that the whole interior was painted.
The tenant has not established that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was unlawful, even if the notice should have been better worded. I dismiss his application for compensation and/or exemplary damages. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenant in full since the landlord has not filed any counterclaim for costs from the bond as section 22(B)(2) RTA requires.
The tenant’s applications for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the HHS and for the alleged unlawful termination of the tenancy are dismissed.
No award of the filing fee is made as the application is mostly unsuccessful. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (5053607-004) to Michael (Cameron) Cameron Clarke immediately.
The application for compensation and/or exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Lethbridge and Ms Shaw represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 17 October 2020 and ended on 17 January 2025.
The landlord terminated the tenancy by notice under section 51(2)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) dated 29 October 2024 on the basis that extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises were to be carried out by the landlord or owner within 90 days after the termination date.
The tenant vacated the tenancy although the relationship between the parties deteriorated towards the end of the tenancy, and they did not part ways cordially. The landlord believes that the tenant has acted in retaliation by making this application.
The landlord wanted to deduct costs from the bond for the repair of 3 doors damaged during the tenancy. However, the landlord has not filed any application for costs from the bond.
The tenant filed an application seeking the return of his bond; compensation and/or exemplary damages for the premises not being Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant; and exemplary damages for the alleged unlawful termination of the tenancy. Issues
The issues the Tribunal determine are these: •Is the tenant entitled to his bond? •Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant? •Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy? Relevant legal considerations
Section 22B(2) RTA provides: If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord 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 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • 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.
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. Those factors are: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion

Is the tenant entitled to his bond?

The landlord confirmed that no cross application for costs from the bond has been filed. Section 22B(2) RTA is mandatory. To claim costs from a disputed bond, the landlord must file a Tribunal application setting out its counterclaim.
In the absence of a counterclaim, I must award the bond to the tenant in full.

Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

The tenant alleges that the premises were not compliant with the HHS because there were draughts through the ranch slider doors and the front door, and the gutterings were not free flowing.
The landlord produced evidence of the HHS assessment that was completed shortly before the tenancy started. The report showed areas of non-compliance (ventilation, draught, and smoke alarms) but those matters were remedied within the compliance timeframe.
The tenant said he raised the draft and guttering issues every year (the tenancy lasted 4 years, 3 months) but they were never addressed.
For most of the tenancy, the landlord was another property management company. This landlord took over the management of the tenancy from about September 2024 so was the landlord for about the last 4 months.
The tenant might have confused HHS compliance with repair and maintenance issues.
That Ms Shaw worked for both companies does not make her the landlord; she was the property manager. The 2 property management companies were the landlord at different times as agent for the owner.
The tenant produced no evidence that the premises were not HHS compliant. If he alleges that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises, he can make an application against his former landlord since it was the landlord for the majority of the time he alleges a failure to maintain and repair.
The Tribunal received no evidence that the landlord named in this application (LREMGMT Limited) failed in its obligations for the short period while it was the landlord.
Without some objective evidence that the premises were not HHS compliant, the Tribunal cannot award compensation and/or exemplary damages for this landlord’s breach of its statutory responsibilities.

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

The landlord’s termination notice referred to the owners wanting to undertake renovations.
Section 51(2)(f) RTA refers to the landlord being able to terminate a tenancy on 90-days’ notice if extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work in undertaken. The timeframe for the work is then prescribed.
So, the landlord’s notice to terminate did not address the correct statutory requirements. But the word renovate is like refurbish, so nothing turns on that.
Ms Shaw made the unusual submission that because the tenancy started in 2020 the law at that time continued to apply, meaning that the landlord could terminate the tenancy without cause. That is not correct.
Section 51(2) RTA was replaced on 11 February 2021 by section 32(1) of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020. It was part of changes to residential tenancy law enacted by Parliament at the time some of which were to provide greater tenant protection.
Landlords need to exercise care when relying on section 51(2)(f) RTA to terminate tenancies. It is not a convenient alternative to ending tenancies that might not otherwise be able to be ended. Parliament enacted the provision for a reason – a balance between a tenant’s tenure and a landlord’s/owner’s right to refurbish, redevelop, alter, and repair.
The work in this case comprised the painting and renovation of the interior of the premises so the premises might attract a higher rent.
Section 51(2)(f) RTA is silent about the motivation for the work. The focus is on the work that was done.
By a fine margin I accept that the full repainting of the interior of the premises would meet the definition of extensive refurbishment. The word ‘extensive’ is not defined in the RTA. The ordinary dictionary definition of extensive is ‘covering or affecting a large area’.
And while the tenant said he would have been willing to remain in possession while the work was done, I accept that it would not have been reasonably practicable, given that the whole interior was painted.
The tenant has not established that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was unlawful, even if the notice should have been better worded. I dismiss his application for compensation and/or exemplary damages. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenant in full since the landlord has not filed any counterclaim for costs from the bond as section 22(B)(2) RTA requires.
The tenant’s applications for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the HHS and for the alleged unlawful termination of the tenancy are dismissed.
No award of the filing fee is made as the application is mostly unsuccessful. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5165011 — Smoke alarms at 6 Birdling Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5165011 — Smoke alarms at 6 Birdling Place, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to his bond?

Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to his bond?

Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions