What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4539909?

The tribunal order states: Thomas Stuart Fergusson to pay Travama Trust Company Limited $200.00

How much money was awarded in case 4539909?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4539909?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4539909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9770026-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4539909?

The tribunal order states: Thomas Stuart Fergusson to pay Travama Trust Company Limited $200.00

How much money was awarded in case 4539909?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4539909?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4539909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9770026-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Grace Crescent, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4539909 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4539909 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$4,450.00		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$2,000.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: entry without notice		$750.00	entry without notice
Exemplary damages: Seizure of property		$1,500.00	Seizure of property
Total award	$4,450.00	$4,250.00
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

Thomas Stuart Fergusson to pay Travama Trust Company Limited $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3245342-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Travama Trust Company Limited: $200.00 Thomas Stuart Fergusson: $1,600.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has sought compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises, entry without notice and seizure of good.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts this amount is owing. Exemplary damages
The RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order those exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal is able to consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award. Failure to maintain.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant alleges that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises over the course of the tenancy, in particular failure to repair and maintain the downpipes and flashings at the property.
The landlord denies that allegation, and notes that a Healthy Homes Assessment (HHA) was done on the property and all issues highlighted were repaired.
I note that there is a HHA for the premises which was completed in November 2022. That report showed the premises was not compliant for heating, ventilation, drainage or the moisture barrier.
The landlord provided me with a quote for a rangehood and moisture barrier. One of the quotes has an address, but the other does not. Further there is no direct evidence of installation. On balance, I accept the oral evidence on behalf of the landlord that those items were install in the premises.
That said, there is no evidence that the bathroom ventilation was completed, nor that the heating, down pipes and drainage problems referred to in the HHA were remedied. It is the tenant’s position they were not.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a damp house with mould for the duration of the tenancy. He was required to patch things to make them serviceable.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair this damage. The HHA was clear on what needed remedying. The landlord did some of these things, so was clearly aware of the requirements.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition, in compliance with the HHS.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and I award $2,000.00. Entry without notice
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord denies entering the premises without notice, although appears to accept that they boarded up the premises on one occasion, effectively locking the tenant out. The tenant’s position is that the landlord has entered the premises on other occasions. The landlord denies going into the dwelling on those occasions.
There is evidence consistent with the landlord going to the premises several times. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they entered the dwelling, except for the time the house was boarded up.
In relation to that instance, the tenant says that it was, essentially an eviction and all his property was removed a short time later. The landlord submits that it was to secure the premises after a burglary.
The contemporaneous material supports the tenant’s version of events, and I accept that evidence. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure was the loss of access to his home and property. This came at a very stressful time for the tenant who had been at Waikato Hospital with a sick child at the time.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally the invasion was significant, planned, and an egregious breach.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in tenants maintaining privacy and security in their homes. This cannot be interrupted by landlords without proper notice.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and I consider the amount must be increased to reflect the nature of the breach. I award $750.00. Seizing goods
The tenant claims the landlord has taken some of their goods.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts that it took the tenant’s property. However, they seek to justify this on the basis that the tenancy had ended.
The tenant disputes that the tenancy had ended.
The landlord relies on an email purporting to given notice. However, the tenant’s response is that this was sent as it was the condition of getting access to the premises after it was boarded up.
I find that notice was not validly given. Further, even if it was, the appropriate course of action where the landlord wanted possession was to seek a possession order from the Tribunal before entering the property.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s actions was that the tenant being without his personal effects for some months. Further, he was told the property had been disposed of, which caused some distress.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally as, again, this action required planning to implement, and then advising the tenant his property had been dumped.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations of compliance with the sections of the Act relating to the seizing and disposal of property. The items in home often represent the majority of a tenant’s possessions and can hold significant value. There is a property and privacy interest in these things which must be respected.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and I award $1,500.00.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4539909 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$4,450.00		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$2,000.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: entry without notice		$750.00	entry without notice
Exemplary damages: Seizure of property		$1,500.00	Seizure of property
Total award	$4,450.00	$4,250.00
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

Thomas Stuart Fergusson to pay Travama Trust Company Limited $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3245342-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Travama Trust Company Limited: $200.00 Thomas Stuart Fergusson: $1,600.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has sought compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises, entry without notice and seizure of good.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts this amount is owing. Exemplary damages
The RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order those exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal is able to consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award. Failure to maintain.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant alleges that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises over the course of the tenancy, in particular failure to repair and maintain the downpipes and flashings at the property.
The landlord denies that allegation, and notes that a Healthy Homes Assessment (HHA) was done on the property and all issues highlighted were repaired.
I note that there is a HHA for the premises which was completed in November 2022. That report showed the premises was not compliant for heating, ventilation, drainage or the moisture barrier.
The landlord provided me with a quote for a rangehood and moisture barrier. One of the quotes has an address, but the other does not. Further there is no direct evidence of installation. On balance, I accept the oral evidence on behalf of the landlord that those items were install in the premises.
That said, there is no evidence that the bathroom ventilation was completed, nor that the heating, down pipes and drainage problems referred to in the HHA were remedied. It is the tenant’s position they were not.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure to act was that the tenant has been subject to living in a damp house with mould for the duration of the tenancy. He was required to patch things to make them serviceable.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally in failing to repair this damage. The HHA was clear on what needed remedying. The landlord did some of these things, so was clearly aware of the requirements.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations to all tenants, and in maintaining properties in a warm, dry and safe condition, in compliance with the HHS.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and I award $2,000.00. Entry without notice
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord denies entering the premises without notice, although appears to accept that they boarded up the premises on one occasion, effectively locking the tenant out. The tenant’s position is that the landlord has entered the premises on other occasions. The landlord denies going into the dwelling on those occasions.
There is evidence consistent with the landlord going to the premises several times. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they entered the dwelling, except for the time the house was boarded up.
In relation to that instance, the tenant says that it was, essentially an eviction and all his property was removed a short time later. The landlord submits that it was to secure the premises after a burglary.
The contemporaneous material supports the tenant’s version of events, and I accept that evidence. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s failure was the loss of access to his home and property. This came at a very stressful time for the tenant who had been at Waikato Hospital with a sick child at the time.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally the invasion was significant, planned, and an egregious breach.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in tenants maintaining privacy and security in their homes. This cannot be interrupted by landlords without proper notice.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and I consider the amount must be increased to reflect the nature of the breach. I award $750.00. Seizing goods
The tenant claims the landlord has taken some of their goods.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts that it took the tenant’s property. However, they seek to justify this on the basis that the tenancy had ended.
The tenant disputes that the tenancy had ended.
The landlord relies on an email purporting to given notice. However, the tenant’s response is that this was sent as it was the condition of getting access to the premises after it was boarded up.
I find that notice was not validly given. Further, even if it was, the appropriate course of action where the landlord wanted possession was to seek a possession order from the Tribunal before entering the property.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 considerations into account, I conclude as follows:
The effect the landlord’s actions was that the tenant being without his personal effects for some months. Further, he was told the property had been disposed of, which caused some distress.
I consider the landlord must have acted intentionally as, again, this action required planning to implement, and then advising the tenant his property had been dumped.
Further, I consider there is a clear public interest in landlords meeting their obligations of compliance with the sections of the Act relating to the seizing and disposal of property. The items in home often represent the majority of a tenant’s possessions and can hold significant value. There is a property and privacy interest in these things which must be respected.
I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in the case, and I award $1,500.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4539909 — Rent arrears at 11 Grace Crescent, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4539909 — Rent arrears at 11 Grace Crescent, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions