What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544889 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 4544889?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544889?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9348019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544889 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 4544889?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544889?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9348019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 811, 22 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4544889 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4544889 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond	$500.00	Failing to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain	$1,000.00	Failing to maintain
Net award	$1,520.44
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Edmund Wee must pay [The tenant/s] $1,520.44 immediately as calculated and set out below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
I am dismissing the landlord claim for cleaning costs and filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for cleaning costs, partial refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for failing to maintain the property and lodging the bond within the time frame, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background:
The tenancy commenced on 10 August 2020 and ended on 22 February 2023. The tenants claim that from the start of the tenancy the property had issues such as a broken ranch slider, dirty duvet and blankets, hole in the wall behind the door, rangehood was hanging down, light not working and had weak power, stains on the carpet and air vents in the bathroom were detached and hanging down.
The tenants raised the issues and provided emails and photos between the landlord and tenants regarding the issues.
The tenants provided an email dated 12 August 2020 to the landlord raising the following issues with the property: -Long blue stain on the carpet -Air vent in bathroom detached and hanging down -Indentation in wall -Sliding door to balcony can not be locked, expressing safety concerns as insecure home and noise nuisance.
On 14 August 2020, the tenants sent an email to landlord regarding stains and burn marks in the bathtub, the broken toaster and iron. The stains in the bathtub were obvious in the entry inspection report and photos. This is significant as the landlord used similar photos at the end of the tenancy to show that the tenants had left the property unclean.
On 29 October 2020 the tenants sent an email to the landlord about a meeting to discuss defects in the property that have been there from the start of the tenancy and are still not remedied such as sliding ranch slider not fixed, light fitting in kitchen has now fallen off, range hood and cupboard unstable and stains on the carpet.
The ranch slider was never fixed and remained insecure and unlockable throughout the 2-and-a-half-year tenancy. The tenants describe sleeping in bed at night with furniture across the ranch slider door to ensure no one climbs in through the broken door while they were asleep in bed.
During the hearing, the landlord accepted that they were aware of the problem and had issued work orders to get the work fixed. Unfortunately for a variety of reasons the landlord did not follow through and ensure the work was done.
Landlord did fix the range hood cupboard and said the bathroom vents were compliant.
The tenants stated in the hearing that they simply put up with minor defects, replaced linen and chattels that were not working as they knew nothing would be done about the issues.
I find that the property is older and in need of some maintenance and renovation. Some of the issues maybe minor in nature but the failure to secure the property by repairing the ranch slider I consider to be significant.
The tenants felt insecure sleeping in their own bed at night because the ranch slider was broken and remained that way throughout the tenancy. Tenants’ claims Failure to maintain/Healthy Homes Standard s45 RTA
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must- provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety
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.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the property in particular by not repairing the ranch slider.
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.
I cannot imagine a possible explanation for the failure of the landlord to secure the property. From the start of the tenancy the tenants have provided emails, photos of the defects with the property and expressed their concern about the ranch slider that cannot be locked to the landlord.
While I am allowing exemplary damages for the breach it is at the low end of the schedule. Many of the issues were less significant and I acknowledge that this is an older property that would have maintenance and renovation needs.
I award the tenants $1000 in exemplary damages for the failure to maintain the property, in particular the ranch slider. Failure to lodge bond s19 RTA
[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 acknowledges that they failed to lodge the bond within the required time frame. The landlord accepts that the bond was paid by the tenants on 6 August 2020 but not lodged until 8 December 2020 after the tenants raised this with the landlord. 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.
I find the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act. This is the tenant’s money, and the landlord had the benefit of the tenant’s money for 4 months. It is important that the integrity of the bond centre is maintained. This was not a short-term slip of the mind; the landlord took 4 months to lodge the bond after the tenants brought it to their attention. As a professional property management company there should be systems in place to safeguard a tenant’s money.
I award the tenants $500.00 in exemplary damages for the failure of the landlord to lodge their bond on time.
The tenants raised other issues, but they were of a general nature rather than a breach of the RTA, such as sending incorrect invoices for rent and power to tenants that were not their responsibility. The tenants felt that this was interference with their privacy, pursuant to s38 of the RTA. I do not accept this submission and dismiss this claim.
Furthermore, that the landlord was requiring rent before it was due therefore a breach of s 23 RTA. However, this was explained as a change in the day the rent fell due. I dismiss the tenants claim for under s 23 RTA. Landlords’ claims
The landlord is claiming for cleaning costs. The landlord has provided photos of the property and a final inspection report and invoice for cleaning.
The tenants have provided extensive videos and photos of the cleaning that they carried out at the end of the tenancy.
I find the landlords photos generally support the tenants view that they left the property reasonabaly clean and tidy.
The tenants say that the property was reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says it was not.
I find that the tenants did leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord had some close-up photos of small areas in the kitchen and the bath. While I accept there are a few spots that could have been cleaned better, the property was cleaned to a high standard.
I dismiss the landlords claim for cleaning cost.
The tenant’s full bond is to be refunded to them immediately.
The tenants have applied for suppression for their names and details. As they have been successful, I am granting suppression of their names and details.
Because Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Edmund Wee

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4544889 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond	$500.00	Failing to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain	$1,000.00	Failing to maintain
Net award	$1,520.44
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Edmund Wee must pay [The tenant/s] $1,520.44 immediately as calculated and set out below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
I am dismissing the landlord claim for cleaning costs and filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for cleaning costs, partial refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for failing to maintain the property and lodging the bond within the time frame, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background:
The tenancy commenced on 10 August 2020 and ended on 22 February 2023. The tenants claim that from the start of the tenancy the property had issues such as a broken ranch slider, dirty duvet and blankets, hole in the wall behind the door, rangehood was hanging down, light not working and had weak power, stains on the carpet and air vents in the bathroom were detached and hanging down.
The tenants raised the issues and provided emails and photos between the landlord and tenants regarding the issues.
The tenants provided an email dated 12 August 2020 to the landlord raising the following issues with the property: -Long blue stain on the carpet -Air vent in bathroom detached and hanging down -Indentation in wall -Sliding door to balcony can not be locked, expressing safety concerns as insecure home and noise nuisance.
On 14 August 2020, the tenants sent an email to landlord regarding stains and burn marks in the bathtub, the broken toaster and iron. The stains in the bathtub were obvious in the entry inspection report and photos. This is significant as the landlord used similar photos at the end of the tenancy to show that the tenants had left the property unclean.
On 29 October 2020 the tenants sent an email to the landlord about a meeting to discuss defects in the property that have been there from the start of the tenancy and are still not remedied such as sliding ranch slider not fixed, light fitting in kitchen has now fallen off, range hood and cupboard unstable and stains on the carpet.
The ranch slider was never fixed and remained insecure and unlockable throughout the 2-and-a-half-year tenancy. The tenants describe sleeping in bed at night with furniture across the ranch slider door to ensure no one climbs in through the broken door while they were asleep in bed.
During the hearing, the landlord accepted that they were aware of the problem and had issued work orders to get the work fixed. Unfortunately for a variety of reasons the landlord did not follow through and ensure the work was done.
Landlord did fix the range hood cupboard and said the bathroom vents were compliant.
The tenants stated in the hearing that they simply put up with minor defects, replaced linen and chattels that were not working as they knew nothing would be done about the issues.
I find that the property is older and in need of some maintenance and renovation. Some of the issues maybe minor in nature but the failure to secure the property by repairing the ranch slider I consider to be significant.
The tenants felt insecure sleeping in their own bed at night because the ranch slider was broken and remained that way throughout the tenancy. Tenants’ claims Failure to maintain/Healthy Homes Standard s45 RTA
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must- provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety
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.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the property in particular by not repairing the ranch slider.
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.
I cannot imagine a possible explanation for the failure of the landlord to secure the property. From the start of the tenancy the tenants have provided emails, photos of the defects with the property and expressed their concern about the ranch slider that cannot be locked to the landlord.
While I am allowing exemplary damages for the breach it is at the low end of the schedule. Many of the issues were less significant and I acknowledge that this is an older property that would have maintenance and renovation needs.
I award the tenants $1000 in exemplary damages for the failure to maintain the property, in particular the ranch slider. Failure to lodge bond s19 RTA
[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 acknowledges that they failed to lodge the bond within the required time frame. The landlord accepts that the bond was paid by the tenants on 6 August 2020 but not lodged until 8 December 2020 after the tenants raised this with the landlord. 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.
I find the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act. This is the tenant’s money, and the landlord had the benefit of the tenant’s money for 4 months. It is important that the integrity of the bond centre is maintained. This was not a short-term slip of the mind; the landlord took 4 months to lodge the bond after the tenants brought it to their attention. As a professional property management company there should be systems in place to safeguard a tenant’s money.
I award the tenants $500.00 in exemplary damages for the failure of the landlord to lodge their bond on time.
The tenants raised other issues, but they were of a general nature rather than a breach of the RTA, such as sending incorrect invoices for rent and power to tenants that were not their responsibility. The tenants felt that this was interference with their privacy, pursuant to s38 of the RTA. I do not accept this submission and dismiss this claim.
Furthermore, that the landlord was requiring rent before it was due therefore a breach of s 23 RTA. However, this was explained as a change in the day the rent fell due. I dismiss the tenants claim for under s 23 RTA. Landlords’ claims
The landlord is claiming for cleaning costs. The landlord has provided photos of the property and a final inspection report and invoice for cleaning.
The tenants have provided extensive videos and photos of the cleaning that they carried out at the end of the tenancy.
I find the landlords photos generally support the tenants view that they left the property reasonabaly clean and tidy.
The tenants say that the property was reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says it was not.
I find that the tenants did leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord had some close-up photos of small areas in the kitchen and the bath. While I accept there are a few spots that could have been cleaned better, the property was cleaned to a high standard.
I dismiss the landlords claim for cleaning cost.
The tenant’s full bond is to be refunded to them immediately.
The tenants have applied for suppression for their names and details. As they have been successful, I am granting suppression of their names and details.
Because Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Edmund Wee

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544889 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 811, 22 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544889 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 811, 22 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

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