What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4552829 about?

The tribunal order states: Datum Homes Limited and Sasta Verma must pay [The tenant/s] $1,980.44

How much money was awarded in case 4552829?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4552829?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4552829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10029910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4552829 about?

The tribunal order states: Datum Homes Limited and Sasta Verma must pay [The tenant/s] $1,980.44

How much money was awarded in case 4552829?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4552829?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4552829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10029910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4552829 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4552829 — net $1,980.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund (bond not lodged	$1,960.00	Bond refund (bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,980.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,980.44

Order

Datum Homes Limited and Sasta Verma must pay [The tenant/s] $1,980.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The application against Datum Homes Limited is dismissed.

Reasons

All three parties attended the hearing on 21 February 2024, the landlord by telephone.
On 18 April 2023 the tenants applied for refund of the bond of $1,960.00. Background facts
A summary of the facts is set out below: • In December 2021 the landlord, Mr Verma, approached Ms Prasad to help him find tenants for several of his rental properties. The landlord and Ms Prasad knew each other from living in the same building. • Ms Prasad helped the landlord to find new tenants. She was paid for her help. • On 30 September 2022 at 6.44pm, Ms Prasad emailed a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenants and requested that they pay the bond to an ASB account in the name of “D Prasad”. The tenants emailed back a signed copy of the tenancy agreement at 8.03pm that evening. • The tenancy agreement provided for a bond of $1,960.00 to be paid into an ASB bank account in the name “S N Verma”. This was a different ASB bank account to the account details provided by Ms Prasad. • At 8.25pm on 30 September 2023, Ms Prasad emailed the tenants and said if the bond was paid today, they would cancel appointments for viewings by prospective tenants tomorrow, otherwise these viewings would be going ahead. In an exchange of text messages, Ms Prasad provided a bank account number with ANZ. • On 3 October 2023, according to their bank statements, the tenants paid the bond. The tenants say the bond was paid to the ASB bank account provided by Ms Prasad in her email. The text messages give the impression the bond was paid to the ANZ account. The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. • The tenancy ended on 8 April 2023. The tenants contacted Ms Prasad about a refund of the bond. In text messages Ms Prasad said she did not have it and it was with the landlord. She gave evidence at the hearing that the bond was paid to her ASB account, but the landlord had requested the bond be paid to him. • In her emails to the tenants, Ms Prasad used the signature block of Datum Homes Ltd. The signature block described her as a project manager. The sole director and shareholder of Datum Homes is Ms Prasad’s mother, Mrs Ganesh.
Following the hearing, the tenants confirmed that the bond was paid on 3 October 2023 to the ASB account emailed to them by Ms Prasad on 30 September 2022. Relevant law
Section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that where any person pays to the landlord, or to any other person on behalf of the landlord, any amount by way of bond, “the person who receives the payment” shall give the payer a written receipt.
Further, “the landlord shall”, within 23 working days after the payment, lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
In the Act, a “landlord” means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises and, where appropriate, includes the agent of a landlord. “Agent” has a circular definition, meaning in relation to any person who is a landlord, an agent of that person in their capacity as a landlord (section 2(1)).
At common law an agent is a person who has authority to create legal relations between another person, called the principal, and a third party. Agency arises where the parties consent to the arrangement, it does have to be contractual.
Agency is also understood in a wider sense, to include a person who has the power or authority to alter the principal’s legal relations with third parties, or in other words, the employment of one person to transact the business of another. Agents in this sense include those who introduce parties to a contract, for example, real estate agents, whose function is to introduce a purchaser.
The principal is responsible for all the agent’s acts done within the agent’s authority, whether the responsibility is contractual or tortious. It does not matter if the agent is acting in fraud of the principal. Where the agent is acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority, the principal is jointly and severally responsible with the agent for the tort, however improper or imperfectly the manner in which the authority is carried out. Where an act done by an agent falls entirely outside the scope of their authority, the principal will not be responsible. Analysis
Ms Prasad gave evidence that she was not the landlord’s agent. However, she introduced the tenants to the premises, and in text messages said she had helped negotiate a reduced rent. She was also involved in arranging payment of the bond by the tenants and was paid for her work. I am satisfied that Ms Prasad was an agent within the meaning of the Act and had authority to administer the tenancy agreement and the bond.
While section 19 of the Act provides that it is for the landlord to lodge the bond, I keep in mind that “landlord” includes an agent of the landlord. Ms Prasad represented to the landlord that she had previously acted as a property agent. There are emails from Ms Prasad dated 14 November 2022 where she talks about lodging the bond, which implies that she understood this was a requirement. The bond lodgement form dated 14 November 2022 also appears to bear her signature. In text messages with the tenant, the landlord said Ms Prasad had not given him the form or the bond money.
In her evidence at the hearing, Ms Prasad said the landlord had requested that the bond be paid to him. Ms Prasad was directed to provide copies of her bank statements showing payment of the bond of $1,960.00 by her to the landlord. She produced bank statements for the bank account number with ASB that she had emailed to the tenants. The statements cover the period 14 August 2022-14 September 2022, 14 November 2022-14 December 2022 and 14 February 2023-14 March 2023. It follows that the bank statements for September-October 2022 were not provided. This is significant because the bond was paid in October 2022.
The bank statements do not show receipt of the bond of $1,960.00 as a lump sum. Nor does this amount appear as a lump sum payment to the landlord. It is not clear why the bond would have been paid to the landlord “bit by bit”, as Ms Prasad suggested. The evidence provided does not establish that she forwarded the bond to the landlord.
Ms Prasad was treated as a witness at the hearing. She was not a party to the application. With the benefit of hindsight, the Tribunal should have joined her to the proceeding as a party. If she had been a party, I would have found that Ms Prasad, as agent, and the landlord, as principal, are jointly liable to refund the bond to the tenants. It was their joint responsibility to lodge the bond.
The landlord denied requesting the bond be paid to him and said he expected the bond to be lodged by his agent. He submitted that Ms Prasad could not receive the bond, keep it, and hold someone else responsible. I appreciate this view, and do not suggest any wrongdoing by the landlord. However, as a matter of law, I find the landlord is liable for the actions of his agent.
I direct the landlord to refund the bond. However imperfectly Ms Prasad performed her obligations as agent, lodging the bond was within her actual implied authority and the landlord is legally responsible for her failure. The law of agency provides the landlord with rights of recourse against his agent.
I find that Datum Homes Limited is not liable to refund the bond. They were not appointed by the landlord to act as property managers. The landlord appointed Ms Prasad and had no dealings with the company.
While Ms Prasad represented that she was an employee of Datum Homes in her emails, I was told that her employment with the company ended on 1 June 2022, and she had no authority from the company. The company did not hold Ms Prasad out as having any authority to act on its behalf. Any holding out was by Ms Prasad. This did not provide apparent authority to act for Datum Homes Limited, because an agent cannot authorise themselves. Filing fee and suppression
The tenants’ application has succeeded. The filing fee must be awarded.
The tenants are granted name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4552829 — net $1,980.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund (bond not lodged	$1,960.00	Bond refund (bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,980.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,980.44

Order

Datum Homes Limited and Sasta Verma must pay [The tenant/s] $1,980.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The application against Datum Homes Limited is dismissed.

Reasons

All three parties attended the hearing on 21 February 2024, the landlord by telephone.
On 18 April 2023 the tenants applied for refund of the bond of $1,960.00. Background facts
A summary of the facts is set out below: • In December 2021 the landlord, Mr Verma, approached Ms Prasad to help him find tenants for several of his rental properties. The landlord and Ms Prasad knew each other from living in the same building. • Ms Prasad helped the landlord to find new tenants. She was paid for her help. • On 30 September 2022 at 6.44pm, Ms Prasad emailed a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenants and requested that they pay the bond to an ASB account in the name of “D Prasad”. The tenants emailed back a signed copy of the tenancy agreement at 8.03pm that evening. • The tenancy agreement provided for a bond of $1,960.00 to be paid into an ASB bank account in the name “S N Verma”. This was a different ASB bank account to the account details provided by Ms Prasad. • At 8.25pm on 30 September 2023, Ms Prasad emailed the tenants and said if the bond was paid today, they would cancel appointments for viewings by prospective tenants tomorrow, otherwise these viewings would be going ahead. In an exchange of text messages, Ms Prasad provided a bank account number with ANZ. • On 3 October 2023, according to their bank statements, the tenants paid the bond. The tenants say the bond was paid to the ASB bank account provided by Ms Prasad in her email. The text messages give the impression the bond was paid to the ANZ account. The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre. • The tenancy ended on 8 April 2023. The tenants contacted Ms Prasad about a refund of the bond. In text messages Ms Prasad said she did not have it and it was with the landlord. She gave evidence at the hearing that the bond was paid to her ASB account, but the landlord had requested the bond be paid to him. • In her emails to the tenants, Ms Prasad used the signature block of Datum Homes Ltd. The signature block described her as a project manager. The sole director and shareholder of Datum Homes is Ms Prasad’s mother, Mrs Ganesh.
Following the hearing, the tenants confirmed that the bond was paid on 3 October 2023 to the ASB account emailed to them by Ms Prasad on 30 September 2022. Relevant law
Section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that where any person pays to the landlord, or to any other person on behalf of the landlord, any amount by way of bond, “the person who receives the payment” shall give the payer a written receipt.
Further, “the landlord shall”, within 23 working days after the payment, lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
In the Act, a “landlord” means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises and, where appropriate, includes the agent of a landlord. “Agent” has a circular definition, meaning in relation to any person who is a landlord, an agent of that person in their capacity as a landlord (section 2(1)).
At common law an agent is a person who has authority to create legal relations between another person, called the principal, and a third party. Agency arises where the parties consent to the arrangement, it does have to be contractual.
Agency is also understood in a wider sense, to include a person who has the power or authority to alter the principal’s legal relations with third parties, or in other words, the employment of one person to transact the business of another. Agents in this sense include those who introduce parties to a contract, for example, real estate agents, whose function is to introduce a purchaser.
The principal is responsible for all the agent’s acts done within the agent’s authority, whether the responsibility is contractual or tortious. It does not matter if the agent is acting in fraud of the principal. Where the agent is acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority, the principal is jointly and severally responsible with the agent for the tort, however improper or imperfectly the manner in which the authority is carried out. Where an act done by an agent falls entirely outside the scope of their authority, the principal will not be responsible. Analysis
Ms Prasad gave evidence that she was not the landlord’s agent. However, she introduced the tenants to the premises, and in text messages said she had helped negotiate a reduced rent. She was also involved in arranging payment of the bond by the tenants and was paid for her work. I am satisfied that Ms Prasad was an agent within the meaning of the Act and had authority to administer the tenancy agreement and the bond.
While section 19 of the Act provides that it is for the landlord to lodge the bond, I keep in mind that “landlord” includes an agent of the landlord. Ms Prasad represented to the landlord that she had previously acted as a property agent. There are emails from Ms Prasad dated 14 November 2022 where she talks about lodging the bond, which implies that she understood this was a requirement. The bond lodgement form dated 14 November 2022 also appears to bear her signature. In text messages with the tenant, the landlord said Ms Prasad had not given him the form or the bond money.
In her evidence at the hearing, Ms Prasad said the landlord had requested that the bond be paid to him. Ms Prasad was directed to provide copies of her bank statements showing payment of the bond of $1,960.00 by her to the landlord. She produced bank statements for the bank account number with ASB that she had emailed to the tenants. The statements cover the period 14 August 2022-14 September 2022, 14 November 2022-14 December 2022 and 14 February 2023-14 March 2023. It follows that the bank statements for September-October 2022 were not provided. This is significant because the bond was paid in October 2022.
The bank statements do not show receipt of the bond of $1,960.00 as a lump sum. Nor does this amount appear as a lump sum payment to the landlord. It is not clear why the bond would have been paid to the landlord “bit by bit”, as Ms Prasad suggested. The evidence provided does not establish that she forwarded the bond to the landlord.
Ms Prasad was treated as a witness at the hearing. She was not a party to the application. With the benefit of hindsight, the Tribunal should have joined her to the proceeding as a party. If she had been a party, I would have found that Ms Prasad, as agent, and the landlord, as principal, are jointly liable to refund the bond to the tenants. It was their joint responsibility to lodge the bond.
The landlord denied requesting the bond be paid to him and said he expected the bond to be lodged by his agent. He submitted that Ms Prasad could not receive the bond, keep it, and hold someone else responsible. I appreciate this view, and do not suggest any wrongdoing by the landlord. However, as a matter of law, I find the landlord is liable for the actions of his agent.
I direct the landlord to refund the bond. However imperfectly Ms Prasad performed her obligations as agent, lodging the bond was within her actual implied authority and the landlord is legally responsible for her failure. The law of agency provides the landlord with rights of recourse against his agent.
I find that Datum Homes Limited is not liable to refund the bond. They were not appointed by the landlord to act as property managers. The landlord appointed Ms Prasad and had no dealings with the company.
While Ms Prasad represented that she was an employee of Datum Homes in her emails, I was told that her employment with the company ended on 1 June 2022, and she had no authority from the company. The company did not hold Ms Prasad out as having any authority to act on its behalf. Any holding out was by Ms Prasad. This did not provide apparent authority to act for Datum Homes Limited, because an agent cannot authorise themselves. Filing fee and suppression
The tenants’ application has succeeded. The filing fee must be awarded.
The tenants are granted name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4552829 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4552829 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions