What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4437180 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 4437180?

Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4437180?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4437180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9565990-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4437180 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 4437180?

Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4437180?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4437180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9565990-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 2, 119A Metcalfe Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4437180 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4437180 — net $1,533.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: No Tenancy Agreement	$240.00	No Tenancy Agreement
Exemplary damages: No receipts for cash	$240.00	No receipts for cash
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$240.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$600.00	Quiet enjoyment
Refund balance of bond	$193.00	Refund balance of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,533.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,533.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Lili Zheng must pay [The tenant/s] $1,533.44 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by her husband as the landlord was out of New Zealand at the time of the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages.
The Tribunal declared in an order dated 10 June 2023 that this is a boarding house tenancy and accordingly the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim. Tenancy Agreement
There was no written Tenancy Agreement and instead the terms of the tenancy were agreed verbally. I am told that the terms included either party giving two weeks’ notice to terminate the tenancy, two week’s bond of $400.00 and weekly rent of $200.00.
The bond amount and the weekly rent changed when the tenant’s husband also lived at the premises. The tenant said that initially her rent was $170.00 per week but this increased to $200.00 per week when her husband moved in. She had paid bond of $340.00 which amounts to two weeks of the initial weekly rent.
The terms of the agreement are not clear and are confusing.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not ensure that the tenancy agreement was in writing. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The lack of a written tenancy agreement resulted in much uncertainty for both parties, but particularly for the tenant. The terms of the agreement were uncertain, and the rights and responsibilities of the parties were not recorded. This has had a negative impact on the tenant. It is in the public interest for tenancy agreements to be in writing to provide certainty.
In the circumstances I consider that it is reasonable that the tenant should be awarded damages of $240.00. Bond not lodged
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 lodge the bond money. I find they have 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.
Section 66D Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that if 1 weeks rent or less is received as bond under a boarding house tenancy the bond need not be lodged with the chief executive and sections 19 to 22D do not apply. But in this situation the tenant paid more than 1 weeks rent as bond money so section 19 to 22D do apply.
The failure of the landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre has created confusion and uncertainty about the amount of bond required and the amount paid. Also, at the end of the tenancy there has been some disagreement in relation to refund of the bond. The tenant says that of the $340.00 bond money paid she was refunded $147.00 and $193.00 was retained by the landlord but she has no idea why.
At the hearing the landlord’s agent said that bond money is paid back when a tenant moves out, but he had no evidence that this tenant received her bond back and if so, how much. When asked where the bond money is he said it was at home.
The tenant has suffered as a result of the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond. She left the tenancy nine months before the hearing date and during that time the landlord has retained some of the bond money without any explanation. It is in the public interest for bond money to be lodged so as to avoid disputes such as these and to provide certainty particularly for the tenant.
I consider it reasonable for the tenant to be awarded $240.00 as damages in addition to receiving the balance of her bond money being $193.00. No receipt for cash
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord insisted on rent being paid in cash. She did not provide any receipts for payments in cash for both rent and the bond. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The failure to provide receipts has resulted in uncertainty as to how much has been received for both rent and bond. It is in the public interest that landlord’s provide receipts for any cash paid so that there is a paper trail for payment and to avoid uncertainty.
In the circumstances I consider that is reasonable for the tenant to be awarded $240.00 for this breach. Quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 66G(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded. See section 66G(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord interfered with the tenant’s use of the premises. I find he has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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.
The tenant’s evidence is that the landlord usually slept in the illegally converted garage which included a bathroom and kitchen. Near the tenant’s room there was a lounge which was for communal use. On occasion the landlord would divide this communal space by hanging a sheet and she would sleep in that space. This would normally happen to make room for a new tenant who would move into the garage space. This impacted on the tenant’s use of the communal space. Also, the landlord would not allow the tenant’s four-year-old son to play in the lounge and would get angry if he made any noise. This impacted on the tenant and her son’s enjoyment of the communal space.
The tenant produced photographs showing the sheet hanging in the space and blankets on the couch. The landlord’s husband said that this was a special occasion, and it did not happen regularly.
There was also an incident where the tenant’s 17-year-old son come to visit, and he was eating a meal with the tenant in the dining room. When the tenant went upstairs for a minute the landlord told her son that he could not eat there and had to leave. The tenant said that her son left as he was upset and scared. The tenant said her son did not return to the premises to visit his mother and was affected by this incident and has been anxious since.
The tenant learnt that the landlord had told others that the rent is only for three people and if the son came to visit, he was using extra power and water.
The intent of the landlord was to restrict the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises. The tenant’s son did not live there and only visited occasionally. This did not happen after the landlord kicked him out.
The landlord’s actions impacted on the tenant and her ability to have her son visit. It is in the public interest for tenants to be able to have friends and family visit without restriction. In the circumstances I consider it reasonable to award the tenant $600.00 for this breach.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4437180 — net $1,533.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: No Tenancy Agreement	$240.00	No Tenancy Agreement
Exemplary damages: No receipts for cash	$240.00	No receipts for cash
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$240.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$600.00	Quiet enjoyment
Refund balance of bond	$193.00	Refund balance of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,533.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,533.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Lili Zheng must pay [The tenant/s] $1,533.44 immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by her husband as the landlord was out of New Zealand at the time of the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages.
The Tribunal declared in an order dated 10 June 2023 that this is a boarding house tenancy and accordingly the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim. Tenancy Agreement
There was no written Tenancy Agreement and instead the terms of the tenancy were agreed verbally. I am told that the terms included either party giving two weeks’ notice to terminate the tenancy, two week’s bond of $400.00 and weekly rent of $200.00.
The bond amount and the weekly rent changed when the tenant’s husband also lived at the premises. The tenant said that initially her rent was $170.00 per week but this increased to $200.00 per week when her husband moved in. She had paid bond of $340.00 which amounts to two weeks of the initial weekly rent.
The terms of the agreement are not clear and are confusing.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not ensure that the tenancy agreement was in writing. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The lack of a written tenancy agreement resulted in much uncertainty for both parties, but particularly for the tenant. The terms of the agreement were uncertain, and the rights and responsibilities of the parties were not recorded. This has had a negative impact on the tenant. It is in the public interest for tenancy agreements to be in writing to provide certainty.
In the circumstances I consider that it is reasonable that the tenant should be awarded damages of $240.00. Bond not lodged
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 lodge the bond money. I find they have 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.
Section 66D Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that if 1 weeks rent or less is received as bond under a boarding house tenancy the bond need not be lodged with the chief executive and sections 19 to 22D do not apply. But in this situation the tenant paid more than 1 weeks rent as bond money so section 19 to 22D do apply.
The failure of the landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre has created confusion and uncertainty about the amount of bond required and the amount paid. Also, at the end of the tenancy there has been some disagreement in relation to refund of the bond. The tenant says that of the $340.00 bond money paid she was refunded $147.00 and $193.00 was retained by the landlord but she has no idea why.
At the hearing the landlord’s agent said that bond money is paid back when a tenant moves out, but he had no evidence that this tenant received her bond back and if so, how much. When asked where the bond money is he said it was at home.
The tenant has suffered as a result of the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond. She left the tenancy nine months before the hearing date and during that time the landlord has retained some of the bond money without any explanation. It is in the public interest for bond money to be lodged so as to avoid disputes such as these and to provide certainty particularly for the tenant.
I consider it reasonable for the tenant to be awarded $240.00 as damages in addition to receiving the balance of her bond money being $193.00. No receipt for cash
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord insisted on rent being paid in cash. She did not provide any receipts for payments in cash for both rent and the bond. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The failure to provide receipts has resulted in uncertainty as to how much has been received for both rent and bond. It is in the public interest that landlord’s provide receipts for any cash paid so that there is a paper trail for payment and to avoid uncertainty.
In the circumstances I consider that is reasonable for the tenant to be awarded $240.00 for this breach. Quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 66G(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded. See section 66G(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord interfered with the tenant’s use of the premises. I find he has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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.
The tenant’s evidence is that the landlord usually slept in the illegally converted garage which included a bathroom and kitchen. Near the tenant’s room there was a lounge which was for communal use. On occasion the landlord would divide this communal space by hanging a sheet and she would sleep in that space. This would normally happen to make room for a new tenant who would move into the garage space. This impacted on the tenant’s use of the communal space. Also, the landlord would not allow the tenant’s four-year-old son to play in the lounge and would get angry if he made any noise. This impacted on the tenant and her son’s enjoyment of the communal space.
The tenant produced photographs showing the sheet hanging in the space and blankets on the couch. The landlord’s husband said that this was a special occasion, and it did not happen regularly.
There was also an incident where the tenant’s 17-year-old son come to visit, and he was eating a meal with the tenant in the dining room. When the tenant went upstairs for a minute the landlord told her son that he could not eat there and had to leave. The tenant said that her son left as he was upset and scared. The tenant said her son did not return to the premises to visit his mother and was affected by this incident and has been anxious since.
The tenant learnt that the landlord had told others that the rent is only for three people and if the son came to visit, he was using extra power and water.
The intent of the landlord was to restrict the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises. The tenant’s son did not live there and only visited occasionally. This did not happen after the landlord kicked him out.
The landlord’s actions impacted on the tenant and her ability to have her son visit. It is in the public interest for tenants to be able to have friends and family visit without restriction. In the circumstances I consider it reasonable to award the tenant $600.00 for this breach.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4437180 — Exemplary damages at Room 2, 119A Metcalfe Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4437180 — Exemplary damages at Room 2, 119A Metcalfe Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

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