What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4452800 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 4452800?

Water Rates: $41.18 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Moving Costs: $1,825.05 awarded to tenant; Storage Fees: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4452800?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4452800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9657355-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4452800 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 4452800?

Water Rates: $41.18 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Moving Costs: $1,825.05 awarded to tenant; Storage Fees: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4452800?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4452800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9657355-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26B Fernlea Rise, Bayview, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4452800 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4452800 — net $4,486.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: overpaid water rates	$41.18	overpaid water rates
Exemplary damages: failing to appoint an agent	$500.00	failing to appoint an agent
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice	$1,500.00	retaliatory notice
Moving costs	$1,825.05	Moving costs
Storage fees	$600.00	Storage fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,486.67
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,486.67

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenant.
Hayley Abedi must pay [The tenant/s] $4,486.67 immediately, as per the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 th October 2023.
The tenancy was from 2 nd June 2022 and ended on 31 st August 2022.
The tenant claimed that: a. The landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and did not provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. The landlord was overseas for more than 21 days without having appointed an agent; and c. The landlord terminated the tenancy in retaliation of the tenant requesting maintenance to be done on the premises; and
The tenant sought: a. Costs associated with the moving; b. Costs due to not being able to find a flatmate to offset the rent due to the termination notice given; c. Compensation for overpaid fixed water charges; d. Compensation for loss of one day’s work due to stress from having to move into a substandard premises; and e. Exemplary damages for breaching the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord disputed all of the claims except for the compensation claim for overpaid fixed water charges of $41.18. As this was not disputed, I order the landlord to reimburse the fixed water charges.
At the end of the hearing, the parties were given an opportunity to provide further evidence to support their respective positions.
I now address each claim in turn having considered the parties’ evidence orally from the hearing and the additional material sent through. Was the premises provided in a reasonably clean state or reasonable state of repair?
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA.
The tenant said that the bathroom ceiling was mouldy, bathroom cabinet and drawers were dirty, the tiles around the shower were black with mould, the catches on the toilet and second bedroom windows were broken and could not open and the washhouse window catch was loose and could not be securely shut, the sliding door in the lounge was jammed, the carpet smelled of dog odour, some of the kitchen cupboards and drawers were filthy, the vent above the stove was dirty and full of fat, some taps were faulty and the curtain brackets were broken and missing so the curtains could not stay in place.
The tenant said that the previous tenants had cleaned the property themselves and the cleaning was not done to a reasonable standard.
When the tenant raised the cleaning issue, the landlord ordered two professional cleaners - one to deep clean the bathroom, kitchen and laundry and another for oven cleaning and two bedrooms.
Having seen the photos of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy, I find that the premises was not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
However, I do not find that the landlord had intentionally provided the premises in an unreasonable state of cleanliness. I find that the landlord had adequately rectified this cleaning issue once notified. This does not warrant any compensation or exemplary damages.
Regarding the items needing repairs, the landlord did arrange a handyman and a painter to fix the issues. Although it was not ideal that the premises was not initially provided in a reasonable state of repair, I find that the landlord adequately attended to the issues raised and I find that it does not warrant any compensation or exemplary damages. Failing to appoint an agent
The tenant claimed that the landlord has been overseas for longer than the RTA permitted without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) RTA.
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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
There was no dispute that the landlord had been out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days during the tenancy. The issue was whether the landlord had adequately appointed an agent while the landlord was overseas.
Under section 16A(4), a landlord who appoints an agent must immediately after appointing the agent, notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address and address for service; and the Bond Centre of the agent’s details in the approved form.
The landlord gave the landlord’s brother’s phone number as the contact person for the premises. However, there was no evidence of the landlord giving any of the other required details.
Further to that, when the tenant started raising issues about the premises with the brother that the brother could not deal with, the landlord sent the tenant a Facebook message saying that “my brother, just to let you know that he is not our property manager please contact me on Facebook for any matter. If there is any urgent matter like leaking I can call you. If not for other matters like sliding doors I will arrange someone to fix it [...].”
I find that this is evidence that the brother was not a properly appointed agent. There was no evidence that the Bond Centre was notified of the brother being an agent neither.
As the landlord has not appointed an agent, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I find that this was an intentional act by the landlord to try to manage the property from overseas and having a family member as a helping hand. This was not something that the RTA allowed. This stops the tenant from having a reliable point of contact within New Zealand. There is public interest in stopping landlords from leaving tenants in a difficult situation.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages.

Was the termination notice given in retaliation?

On 10 th July 2022, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 16 th September 2022. As the tenant had to move out, the tenant sent the landlord a termination notice on 3 rd August 2022 with the final date of the tenancy being 31 st August 2022.
The tenant claimed the landlord’s termination notice dated 9 th July 2022 (served on 10 th July 2022) was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
On 7 th July 2022, the tenant sent the landlord a 14-day notice with a list of issues that needed to be rectified. They included the water taps, curtain brackets, ceiling mould, dog smell and gutter and drainage issues.
Two days later, the landlord responded with a letter saying that the tenant had sent many texts, letters and messages to the landlord and that this level of requests was unusual. The landlord went onto explain all the cleaning and repairs that had been undertaken at the tenant’s requests in the notice before ultimately concluding with a termination notice under section 51(1)(a) RTA with the reason that the landlord’s parents were coming to New Zealand for a “long visit”.
Despite this termination notice being served on the tenant on 10 th July 2022, the landlord did not apply for their parents’ visas until 16 th September 2022.
But as soon as the parent’s visas were applied for, the premises was relisted for tenancy on 18 th September 2022. New tenants moved into the premises soon afterwards and stayed at the premises until early October 2023.
There seems to be no suggestion that the new tenants were ever told about the parents coming or any termination notice having been given to them to make room for the parents’ visit.
The landlord had another rental property that had become flooded in early 2023 and the parents ended up staying there when they finally came to New Zealand in April 2023.
The landlord explained that the landlord could not serve a termination notice on the other tenants to house the parents because they were under a fixed-term tenancy at the time before moving out due to the premises becoming flooded in early 2023.
The landlord said that it was just by chance that the other property became available and that the parents could stay there in April 2023.
If the parents were to stay at one of the two rental properties from the beginning of April 2023, a termination notice under section 51 should have been served by the end of January 2023 or in February 2023. There was no evidence of termination notice even being contemplated by the landlord.
I find that the landlord was motivated wholly or at least partly by the tenant exercising the tenant’s right to serve a 14-days’ notice in terminating the tenancy. That is an unlawful act.
I find that it was intentional and that the retaliatory notice resulted in the tenant having to relocate after only having stayed 90 days at the premises. This has resulted in significant disruption and loss for the tenant.
I find there is public interest in protecting the tenant from landlords serving retaliatory notices.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.
As this necessitated the tenant having to pay moving costs of $1,825.05 to move again unexpectedly, I order the landlord to reimburse the moving costs.
I also order the landlord to compensate the tenant for storage fees of $600.00 for the items that could not be moved into the subsequent rental premises. Orders not granted
I do not grant the tenant’s application for costs in not being able to find a flatmate to offset the rent due to the retaliatory termination notice given.
Although it is accepted that it would have been difficult for the tenant to find a flatmate given the pending termination, there was no evidence of efforts to even find a flatmate and no guarantee that a flatmate would have been found.
Further, I do not grant the tenant any compensation for loss of one day’s work due to the stress received from moving into a substandard premises.
The tenant had previously viewed the premises before moving in and the loss of work is not something that was a reasonable consequence of the premises not being provided in a reasonably clean state. Filing fees
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4452800 — net $4,486.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: overpaid water rates	$41.18	overpaid water rates
Exemplary damages: failing to appoint an agent	$500.00	failing to appoint an agent
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice	$1,500.00	retaliatory notice
Moving costs	$1,825.05	Moving costs
Storage fees	$600.00	Storage fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,486.67
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,486.67

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenant.
Hayley Abedi must pay [The tenant/s] $4,486.67 immediately, as per the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 th October 2023.
The tenancy was from 2 nd June 2022 and ended on 31 st August 2022.
The tenant claimed that: a. The landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and did not provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. The landlord was overseas for more than 21 days without having appointed an agent; and c. The landlord terminated the tenancy in retaliation of the tenant requesting maintenance to be done on the premises; and
The tenant sought: a. Costs associated with the moving; b. Costs due to not being able to find a flatmate to offset the rent due to the termination notice given; c. Compensation for overpaid fixed water charges; d. Compensation for loss of one day’s work due to stress from having to move into a substandard premises; and e. Exemplary damages for breaching the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord disputed all of the claims except for the compensation claim for overpaid fixed water charges of $41.18. As this was not disputed, I order the landlord to reimburse the fixed water charges.
At the end of the hearing, the parties were given an opportunity to provide further evidence to support their respective positions.
I now address each claim in turn having considered the parties’ evidence orally from the hearing and the additional material sent through. Was the premises provided in a reasonably clean state or reasonable state of repair?
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA.
The tenant said that the bathroom ceiling was mouldy, bathroom cabinet and drawers were dirty, the tiles around the shower were black with mould, the catches on the toilet and second bedroom windows were broken and could not open and the washhouse window catch was loose and could not be securely shut, the sliding door in the lounge was jammed, the carpet smelled of dog odour, some of the kitchen cupboards and drawers were filthy, the vent above the stove was dirty and full of fat, some taps were faulty and the curtain brackets were broken and missing so the curtains could not stay in place.
The tenant said that the previous tenants had cleaned the property themselves and the cleaning was not done to a reasonable standard.
When the tenant raised the cleaning issue, the landlord ordered two professional cleaners - one to deep clean the bathroom, kitchen and laundry and another for oven cleaning and two bedrooms.
Having seen the photos of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy, I find that the premises was not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
However, I do not find that the landlord had intentionally provided the premises in an unreasonable state of cleanliness. I find that the landlord had adequately rectified this cleaning issue once notified. This does not warrant any compensation or exemplary damages.
Regarding the items needing repairs, the landlord did arrange a handyman and a painter to fix the issues. Although it was not ideal that the premises was not initially provided in a reasonable state of repair, I find that the landlord adequately attended to the issues raised and I find that it does not warrant any compensation or exemplary damages. Failing to appoint an agent
The tenant claimed that the landlord has been overseas for longer than the RTA permitted without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) RTA.
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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
There was no dispute that the landlord had been out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days during the tenancy. The issue was whether the landlord had adequately appointed an agent while the landlord was overseas.
Under section 16A(4), a landlord who appoints an agent must immediately after appointing the agent, notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address and address for service; and the Bond Centre of the agent’s details in the approved form.
The landlord gave the landlord’s brother’s phone number as the contact person for the premises. However, there was no evidence of the landlord giving any of the other required details.
Further to that, when the tenant started raising issues about the premises with the brother that the brother could not deal with, the landlord sent the tenant a Facebook message saying that “my brother, just to let you know that he is not our property manager please contact me on Facebook for any matter. If there is any urgent matter like leaking I can call you. If not for other matters like sliding doors I will arrange someone to fix it [...].”
I find that this is evidence that the brother was not a properly appointed agent. There was no evidence that the Bond Centre was notified of the brother being an agent neither.
As the landlord has not appointed an agent, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I find that this was an intentional act by the landlord to try to manage the property from overseas and having a family member as a helping hand. This was not something that the RTA allowed. This stops the tenant from having a reliable point of contact within New Zealand. There is public interest in stopping landlords from leaving tenants in a difficult situation.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages.

Was the termination notice given in retaliation?

On 10 th July 2022, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 16 th September 2022. As the tenant had to move out, the tenant sent the landlord a termination notice on 3 rd August 2022 with the final date of the tenancy being 31 st August 2022.
The tenant claimed the landlord’s termination notice dated 9 th July 2022 (served on 10 th July 2022) was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
On 7 th July 2022, the tenant sent the landlord a 14-day notice with a list of issues that needed to be rectified. They included the water taps, curtain brackets, ceiling mould, dog smell and gutter and drainage issues.
Two days later, the landlord responded with a letter saying that the tenant had sent many texts, letters and messages to the landlord and that this level of requests was unusual. The landlord went onto explain all the cleaning and repairs that had been undertaken at the tenant’s requests in the notice before ultimately concluding with a termination notice under section 51(1)(a) RTA with the reason that the landlord’s parents were coming to New Zealand for a “long visit”.
Despite this termination notice being served on the tenant on 10 th July 2022, the landlord did not apply for their parents’ visas until 16 th September 2022.
But as soon as the parent’s visas were applied for, the premises was relisted for tenancy on 18 th September 2022. New tenants moved into the premises soon afterwards and stayed at the premises until early October 2023.
There seems to be no suggestion that the new tenants were ever told about the parents coming or any termination notice having been given to them to make room for the parents’ visit.
The landlord had another rental property that had become flooded in early 2023 and the parents ended up staying there when they finally came to New Zealand in April 2023.
The landlord explained that the landlord could not serve a termination notice on the other tenants to house the parents because they were under a fixed-term tenancy at the time before moving out due to the premises becoming flooded in early 2023.
The landlord said that it was just by chance that the other property became available and that the parents could stay there in April 2023.
If the parents were to stay at one of the two rental properties from the beginning of April 2023, a termination notice under section 51 should have been served by the end of January 2023 or in February 2023. There was no evidence of termination notice even being contemplated by the landlord.
I find that the landlord was motivated wholly or at least partly by the tenant exercising the tenant’s right to serve a 14-days’ notice in terminating the tenancy. That is an unlawful act.
I find that it was intentional and that the retaliatory notice resulted in the tenant having to relocate after only having stayed 90 days at the premises. This has resulted in significant disruption and loss for the tenant.
I find there is public interest in protecting the tenant from landlords serving retaliatory notices.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.
As this necessitated the tenant having to pay moving costs of $1,825.05 to move again unexpectedly, I order the landlord to reimburse the moving costs.
I also order the landlord to compensate the tenant for storage fees of $600.00 for the items that could not be moved into the subsequent rental premises. Orders not granted
I do not grant the tenant’s application for costs in not being able to find a flatmate to offset the rent due to the retaliatory termination notice given.
Although it is accepted that it would have been difficult for the tenant to find a flatmate given the pending termination, there was no evidence of efforts to even find a flatmate and no guarantee that a flatmate would have been found.
Further, I do not grant the tenant any compensation for loss of one day’s work due to the stress received from moving into a substandard premises.
The tenant had previously viewed the premises before moving in and the loss of work is not something that was a reasonable consequence of the premises not being provided in a reasonably clean state. Filing fees
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4452800 — Exemplary damages at 26B Fernlea Rise, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4452800 — Exemplary damages at 26B Fernlea Rise, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the termination notice given in retaliation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the termination notice given in retaliation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions